^M 


v  v 

i&.o-0.o.o  —  o»o.o.o.0.o.o.o.o-o-o-'fj| 


-— — r 


* 


PRINCETON,  N.  J. 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agnew  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No. 


W5jg7 


A 

FAMILIAR  ILLUSTRATION 

OP 

CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM: 

IX  WHICH  THE 

PROPER  SUBJECTS  OF  THAT  ORDINANCE 

AND  THE 

MODE  OF  ADMINISTRATION  ARE  ASCERTAINED 

FRO?,I  THE 

WORD  OF  GOD 

AND  THE 

HtSTORY  OF  THE  CHURCH; 

AND  DEFENDED   FHOM  THE  OBJECTIONS  USUALLY  UHGED  BT  THE 

OPFOSERS  OF  INFANT  BAPTISM, 

AND  THE 

ADVOCATES  OF  IMMERSION: 
IN  THE  FORM  OF  A  DIALOGUE. 


BY  NATHANIEL  S.  PRIME, 

PASTOH  OF  THE  PtlKSI^TERI AN  CHURCH,    IN   CA^BRILCE.,   (.V.  T.) 


SALEM,  (N.Y.) 
PRINTED  BY  DODD  fcf  STEVENSON. 

1818. 


SOUTHERN  DISTRICT  OF  NEW-YORK,  m. 

Be  it  remembered,  That  on  the  twentieth  day  of  June,  in 
the  forty  second  year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States 
(l.s.)  of  America,  Henry  Dodd  and  James  Stevenson,  Jun.  of  the  said 
District,  have  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right 
whereof  they  claim  as  proprietors,  in  the  wi'rds  following,  to  wit :— "  A 
"  Familiar  Illustration  of  Christian  Baptism  •  in  which  the  Proper  Sub- 
jects of  that  Ordinance  and  the  Mode  of  Administration  are  Ascertain- 
ed from  the  Word  of  God  and  the  History  of  the  Church,  and  defend- 
"  ed  from  the  Objections  usually  urged  by  the  Opposers  of  Infant  Baptism, 
"  and  the  advocates  of  Immersion  :  In  the  form  of  a  Dialogue.  By  Na- 
"  thaniel  S.  Prime,  Pastor  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  Cambridge, 

"(N.Y.r 

In  conformity  to  the  act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  enti- 
tled "  An  act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learning,  by  securing  the  copies 
<of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books  to  the  authors  and  proprietors  of  such  copies, 
during  the  time  therein  mentioned  M  And  also  to  an  Act,  entitled  "  an  \ct 
supplementary  to  an  Act,  entitled  an  Act  for  the  encouragement  of  Learn- 
ing, by  securing  the  copies  of  Maps,  Charts,  and  Books  to  the  authors  and 
proprietors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned,  and  extend- 
ing the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designing,  engraving,  and  etching 
historical  and  other  prints." 

JAMES  DILL,  Clerk 
of  the  Southern  District  of  New-  York. 


CONTENTS. 

SECTION  I. 

PAGE. 

OPENING  of  the  discussion,  and  importance  of  the 
subject, 13 

Objection  to  the  Paedobaptist  scheme,  because  found- 
ed on  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
church,  answered, 18 

Objection,  that  infant  membership  stands  on  the  same 
foundation  with  tythes,  animal  sacrifices,  &c.  shewn 
to  be  utterly  false, 21 

Dr.  Gill's  objection  to  referring  Gal.  iii.  17.  to  infant- 
membership  shewn  to  be  groundless,     ....       23 

Objection,  that  the  "  covenant  of  circumcision"  is  dis- 
tinct from  that  which  contains  "  the  promise  of  a 
Saviour,"  shewn  to  be  worse  than  false,     ...      25 

The  rite  of  circumcision  done  away,  and  infant  mem- 
bership left  untouched, 29 

Objection,  that  Abraham,  in  the  covenant  which  God 
made  with  him,  was  considered  a  type  of  Christ, 
proved  false  and  absurd, 33 

SECTION  II. 

1st  Argument  in  proof  of  the  sameness  of  the  church, 
founded  on  the  sameness  of  the  covenant,      .     .      39 

Objection,  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  a  "  na- 
tional compact"  answered;  and  that  covenant  shewn 
to  contain  all  the  blessings  ever  promised  to  the 
church, 40 

Objection,  that  circumcision  is  a  mere  badge  of  na- 
tional descent,  answered, 44 

Objection,  founded  on  the  moral  character  of  the 
Jews,  shewn  to  be  groundless, 50 

Dr.  Gill's  ten  arguments  against  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant examined, 54 


iv  CONTENTS. 

mar.. 

Children,  both  under  the  former  and  present  dispen- 
sation, born  into  the  covenant ;  and  therefore  nei- 
ther circumcision  nor  baptism  can  be  properly  cal- 
led u  an  initiating  ordinance," 64 

Objection,  that  "  circumcision  was  not  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith/-'  when  applied  to  Abraham's 
seed,  answered;  and  that  rite  shewn  to  imply  the 
same  in  both  cases, 67 

Objection,  that  this  makes  grace  "hereditary,"  an- 
swered,     60 

The  view  given  of  the  subject,  shewn  to  be  anala- 
gous  to  other  parts  of  the  divine  government,  and 
secures  the  most  powerful  means  for  the  promotion 
of  religion, 72. 

Objection  founded  on  the  immorality  of  the  children 
of  believers,  answered ;  by  shewing  that  their  im- 
piety results,  not  from  any  defect  in  the  covenant, 
but  from  the  unfaithfulness  of  parents,     .     ...     75 

Objection,  that  the  view  given  of  the  subject  is  "  cal- 
culated to  do  injury  to  souls,"  answered,       ...    82 


SECTION  HI. 

2d  Argument,  that  the  same  principles  of  holiness  and 
obedience  were  required  under  both  dispensations,     86 

Objection,  that  the  obligation  of  the  Jews  to  exercise 
real  holiness  resulted  merely  from  the  universal 
law  of  God,  and  that  the  Abrahamic  covenant  re- 
quired nothing  but  typical  holiness, ibid. 

If  the  Jewish  church  were  a  mere  type  of  the  Chris- 
tian, one  prominent  feature  in  the  type  not  to  be 
found  in  the  antitype ;  (that  is,  on  the  supposition 
that  the  Baptist  church  is  the  true  Christian  church :)     87 

The  last  objection  proved  false,  by  a  recurrence  to 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  in  its  original  institution 
and  subsequent  renewals,  • 90 

destroys  the  moral  character  of  God,       .     .     95 

is  inconsistent  with  the  Lord's  charging  them 

with  hypocrisy, 96 

In  the  renewal  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  at  Mount 
Sinai,  the  Lord  required,  and  the  Israelites  promis- 
ed absolute  holiness,      .     .     .     •     .     .     .     .     .     100 


CONTENTS.  v 

PAGE. 

The  ten  commandments  laid  down  as  the  basis  of  the 
ceremonial  economy ;  and  these,  Israel  solemnly 
covenanted  to  obey, 106 

The  renewal  of  the  covenant  on  the  borders  of  Ca- 
naan, in  which  absolute  holiness  is  required  of  Is- 
rael, on  express  condition  of  their  enjoying  the  pro- 
mised land, 108 

Three  notable  institutions  for  the  maintenance  of  re- 
ligion in  Israel,      .  Ill 

Absolute  holiness  promised  in  the  renewal  of  the  co- 
venant under  Joshua,  and  afterwards  under  pro- 
phets and  kings, 113 

Repentance  and  faith  required  and  promised  in  the 
Abrahamic  covenant, 116 

The  irregularities  which  existed  in  the  Jewish  church, 
did  not  proceed  from  any  defect  in  their  constitu- 
tion, but  from  the  unfaithfulness  of  the  rulers,     .     123 


SECTION  IV. 

3d  Argument,  drawn  from  the  application  of  the 
same  figures  to  express  the  relation  between  God 
and  the  church,  under  both  dispensations,      .     .     126 

The  marriage  covenant, 127 

The  relation  between  a  shepherd  and  flock,      .     .     128 
Vine  and  branches;  husbandman  and  vineyard,      .     129 

A  rock  of  foundation  and  refuge. 130 

Bath  communities  are  called  "  the  church,"     .     .      ibid. 
4th  Argument,  founded  on  the  nature  and  design  of 

the  special  ordinances  under  both  dispensations,     132 
Unity  of  design  between  the  passover  and  the  Lord's 

supper, 133 

—  between  circumcision  and  baptism,     .     .     .     134 

Remarks  on  the  Rev.  Robert  Hall's  opinion,  that  bap- 
tism is  not  an  essential  prerequisite  to  communion 

at  the  Lord's  table,  (a  note,) 135 

Circumcision,  if  not  superseded  by  baptism,  was  ne- 
ver abrogated  by  our  Lord, 136 

Objection,  founded  on  the  result  of  the  council  at  Je- 
rusalem, answered, 140 

Application  of  baptism  to  both  sexes  does  not  render 
it i(  essentially  different"  from  circumcision,    .    .   142 
1* 


vi  CONTENTS. 

SECTION  V. 

5th  Argument,  drawn  from  express  declarations  of 

scripture, 143 

Mat.xxi.43, ibid. 

Acts  ii.  39,       . 14(> 

Gal.  iv.  22— 31, 153 

Rom.  xi.  15 — 25, loo 

Eph.  ii.  11— 22, 1G9 

Apocalyptic  allusions,        171 


SECTION  VI. 

Recapitulation  of  arguments, 172 

Objection,  that  this  method  of  proving  infant  baptism 

is  a  "recent  invention," answered, 175 

Testimonies  from  the  fathers  and  historians,  in  fa- 
vour of  infant  baptism, 176 

Dr.  Wall's  summary  of  evidence, 177 

The  testimony  of  Tertullian,  and  strictures  on  the 

use  made  thereof  by  the  Baptists,        ....  178 

Testimony  of  Justin  Martyr, 182 

of  Irekeus, 133 

ofORIGEN, 185 

of  Cyprian,  and  the  council  of  Carthage,  ibid. 

of  Ambrose  and  Chrysostom,     .     .         .ISO 

of  Hierome  and  Austin, 1x7 

Evidence  derived  from  the  Feiagiax  controversy,  188 

from  Ecclesiastical  History,     ....  190 

Mosheot's  account  of  the  rise  of  the  Baptists,     .     .  192 
A  conjecture  as  to  the  derivation  of  Baptist  senti- 
ments, (a  note,) 195 

V  query  not  answered — Are  the  Baptist  churches  to 
be  regarded  as  churches  of  Christ,  and  their  elders 

as  regularly  authorized  ministers  of  the  gospel  ?    .  196 


SECTION  VII. 

Inference  from  the  preceding  discussion,  in  favour  of 

infant  baptism, .199 

A  review  of  the  state  of  the  controversy,    .     .     .      299 


CONTENTS.  -  Mi 

PAGE, 

Infant  baptism  plainly  recognised  in  the  New-Tes- 
tarnent,  Mat.  xix.  14,  Mark  x.  14,  Luke  xviii.  16,       20-3 

MatKw,  xxviii.  19, 2u6 

Baptism  of  households  on  the  faith  of  the  believing 
parents,  as  in  the  case  of  Lydia  and  the  jailer,       207 

1  Cor.vii.14,         .209 

Objection — "  What  good  can  it  do  to  baptize  children?" 
answered, j 213 

Nature  of  the  relation  of  baptized  children  to  the 
church, 217 

The  glory  of  the  Paedobaptist  church  obscured,  in 
times  past,  by  her  own  unfaithfulness,      .     .     .       226 

Revival  of  discipline, ibid. 

Objection,  that  the  Baptist  churches  increase,  &c.     227 

■ that  "Baptists  know  they  are  right,"         228 


SECTION  Vlil. 

Inconsistencies  of  the  Baptist  system,  ....  229 
It  rejects  the  divine  authority  of  the  Christian  sabbath,  230 
Discards  infant  baptism,  tor  the  want  of  '•  explicit 

warrant,"  and  admits  female  communion  without  it,  23o 
Rejects  the  Old  Testament  as  a  rule  of  duty,     .     .     241 
Virtually  excommunicates  the  great  body  of  the  Chris- 
tian church, ibid. 

Close  communion  possesses  "a  frightful  aspect/' and 

is  justly  "  odious"  to  the  intelligent,    -     -    -     -     242 
Character  of  the  churches  and  individuals  which  are 

excommunicated  by  that  system, 245 

Lebbeus  yields  the  ai  ■  and  declares  his  convic- 

tion of  the  correctness  of  thePsedobaptist  scheme,  246 


SECTION  IX. 

On  thi  Baptism — This  part  of  the  subject  of 

sir;.  »mpared  with  the  former,     .     247 

jections  to  free  communion  considered  and 
traced  to  their  source,  (a  note,) 251 

Arguments  in  favour  of  immersion  reduced  to  two 
heads— -1st,  The  import  of  the  original  word,  con- 
sidered, and  shewn  to  be  inconclusive,     ....    252 


viii  CONTENTS. 

£4.62. 

2d,  Argument  founded  on  the  circumstances  attend- 
ing the  administration  of  that  ordinance,  consider- 
ed,      .209 

All  of  these  relate  to  John's  baptism,  which  was  not 

Christian  baptism,         271 

This  is  shewn,  1st,  from  the  object  of  John's  admi- 
nistration,        273 

2.  From  the  import  of  John's  baptism,  compared 
with  that  of  Christian  baptism, 275 

3.  From  the  formula  of  administration,    ....     279 

4.  From  the  absurdity  which  the  supposition  of  their 
sameness  involves, ibid. 

The  example  of  Christ,  in  receiving  baptism  from 
John,  was  not  designed  for  the  imitation  of  his  fol- 
lowers, nor  can  it  be  imitated  by  them,     .     .     .     280 

5.  John's  baptism  not  Christian  baptism,  proved  from 
the  fact,  that  the  apostles,  in  admitting  persons  to 
the  communion  of  the  church,  paid  no  respect  to 
John's  administration, 283 

In  all  other  cases,  the  circumstances  decide  against  im- 
mersion,     2S9 

Sprinkling  the  most  appropriate  and  significant  mode,  294 

Lebbeu9  yields  the  point,  asks  and  receives  advice  as 
to  the  course  of  duty, 297 

Evident  tokens,  that  the  Baptist  system  is  rapidly  de- 
clining, and  will  soon  become  extinct,      .     .     .     299 

CONCLUDING  ADDRESSES. 

1.  To  the  Poedobaptist  churches,      •     .     .     .     .  301 

2.  To  professing  parents, 304 

3.  To  baptized  children, 308 

4.  To  unbelieving  parents, 310 

5.  To  the  children  of  unbelievers,     ....  312 


PREFACE. 


"WHAT!  another  publication  on- baptism  ?"  will  proba- 
»!y  be  the  exclamation  of  many,  mto  whose  himds  this  little 
volume  may  fall.  At  the  same  time  it  will  be  asked,  "Can  any 
new  light  be  thrown  on  this  hackneyed  subject?'*  Whether 
this  has  been  done,,  or  not,  in  the  following-  pages,  two  conside- 
rations, in  the  author's  opinion,  justify  the  publication.  The 
first  is,  that  local  productions  induce  many  to  read,  who  would 
otherwise  remain  ignorant  of  the  merits  of  the  controversy  ;  and, 
therefore,  be  liable  to  fall  into  error,  whenever  their  minds  might 
be  called  to  the  subject.  That  such  an  inducement  is  needed  at 
the  present  juncture,  in  this  region  of  country,  is  the  opinion  of 
many  of  my  brethren,  who  have  examined  and  advised  the  publi- 
cation. The  other  is,  that  until  the  Paedobapt-.st  churches  con- 
duct more  consistently  with  iheir  profession,  any  production  that 
is  calculated  to  a  Waken  them  to  duty,  cannot  be  unseasonable. 
The  object  of  th:s  publication  is,  not  only  to  defend  their  system, 
but,  also,  to  excite  them  to  walk  worthy  of  their  high  vocation. 
Controversy  is  always  painful  to  my  feelings.  For  the  truth  of 
this  position,  as  far  as  it  can  be  tested  by  a  man's  conduct,  1  con- 
fidently appeal  to  ail  who  have  known  me,  in  the  whole  course  of 
my  ministry.  But,  doubtless,  there  a.re  cases,  in  which  the  Chris- 
tian minister,  notwithstanding  his  reluctance,  is  bound  to  enter 
the  lists,  in  defence  of  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  gospel.  Then, 
aversion  to  controversy,  would  be  a  crime.  That  such  a  case  ex- 
isted, when  this  work  was  undertaken,  will  appear  from  the  fol- 
lowing statement  of  facts. 

In  the  fore  part  of  the  last  year,  there  was  some  special  atten- 
tion to  religious  concerns  among  the  people  of  my  charge,  as  well 
as  in  other  neighbouring  congregations.  At  that  time,  the  Bap- 
tists, many  of  whom  had  Leon  in  habits  of  Christian  intercourse 
with  our  people,  began  to  rail  against  our  practice;  intimating, 
that  we  had  no  foundation  in  scripture  for  our  scheme  ;  that  in- 
fant baptism  was  an  invention  of  the  devil;  a  relict  of  Popery; 
that  all  who  practised  it,  had  no  claim  to  the  name  of  "church  \" 
and  many  other  similar  insinuations,  which  are  familiar  to  all, 
who  are  the  least  acquainted  with,  that  denomination.  These 
things  were  endured  a  long  time,  without  gainsaying  ;  because, 
1  was  unwilling  to  divert  the  attention  of  my  people  from  the  es- 
sence  of  religion,  to  mere  external  rites  and  forme.  To  do  so,  I 
knew  might  make  them  bigots,  but  could  not  make  them  Chris- 
t/mis. The  latter,  1  ardently  desired:  the  farmer,  I  most  sincere- 
ly deprecated. 

When  the  religious  excitement  had  abated,  and  upon  an  occa- 
sion when  the  ordinance  of  baptism  was  to  be  administered  to  se- 
veral households,  1  considered  it  proper,  and,  on  the  whole,  expe- 


x  PREFACE. 

dient,  to  preach  on  the  subject,  and  defend  our  practice  from  the 
attacks  of  impious  raillery  and  groundless  assertion.  Two  dis- 
courses, winch  were  then  delivered,  formed  the  basis  of  this  pro- 
duction. Many  of  my  people  solicited  their  publication  at  the 
time;  but  my  avocations  were  such,  that  I  had  not  leisure  to  re- 
vise the  subject,  till  the  commencement  of  winter. 

To  publish,  in  the  sermon  form,  appeared  inexpedient ;  for  the 
following  reason  : — A  person  prejudiced  against  Poedobaptism, 
often  takes  up  a  sermon,  and  in  reading  a  single  page,  two  or 
three  objections  arise  in  his  mind ;  which,  though  completely  an- 
swered in  the  close  of  the  discourse,  have  their  full  influence  in 
blinding  him  against  conviction,  while  he  is  attending  to  the 
argument.  To  obviate,  as  far  as  possible,  this  difficulty,  the  di- 
alogue form  was  adopted,  as  being  the  readiest  method  to  answer 
objections  as  soon  as  they  arise. 

This  method  is  liable  to  one  objection.  The  writer  has  the 
opportunity  of  putting  words  into  his  opponent's  mouth.  All  I 
can  say  to  remove  this,  is,  that  I  have  studiously  endeavoured  to 
make  my  "  LEBBErs"  a  thorough  Baptist.  While  the  argument 
was  in  train,  I  carefully  avoided  putting  any  concession  into  his 
mouth,  but  what  I  have  seen  or  heard  advanced  on  that  side  of 
the  question.  His  arguments  and  objections  are  usually  taken 
from  some  Baptist  writer,  and  when  the  quotation  could  be  made 
'verbatim,  or  nearly  so,  it  is  designated  as  such.  I  have  referred, 
but  in  few  cases,  to  the  authors'  names,  as  it  would  be  attaching 
to  many  pamphlets,  a  consequence,  of  which  they  are  really  un- 
worthy. The  attention  which  has  been  bestowed  upon  them,  is  not 
on  account  of  their  intrinsic  merits,  but  because  of  their  imposing" 
influence  on  the  ignorant  and  unwary.  The  intelligent  reader 
may  be  ready  to  imagine  that,  in  some  instances,  1  have  descend- 
ed to  objections  that  were  really  unworthy  of  notice.  My  only 
apology  is,  I  have  been  writing  for  the  benefit  of  the  illiterate, 
whose  minds  are  often  influenced  by  trifles.  I  have,  therefore, 
past  over  no  argument  or  objection  on  the  other  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, that  appeared  calculated  to  impose  on  the  uninformed  mind. 

in  endeavouring  to  possess  myself  of  the  arguments  and  objec- 
tions of  our  opponents,  I  have  carefully  perused  every  publica- 
tion on  that  side  of  the  question  that  I  could  procure,  from  Br. 
Gill's  system,  down  to  the  ephemeral  productions  of  the  day; 
which,  like  Sybil's  leaves,  are  flying  in  every  direction  ;  some  of 
which  have  been  gratuitously  distributed  among  my  own  people  ; 
and  which,  if  I  am  capable  of  judging,  are  like  Sybil's  leaves  af- 
ter they  were  scattered  by  the  wind — unconnected,  and,  in  a  great 
measure,  unintelligible.  On  the  other  hand,  I  purposely  avoided 
the  perusal  of  our  own  authors.  It  is  true,  that  in  years  past,  I 
had  read  considerably  on  the  subject;  and,  therefore,  my  mind 
could  not  be  entirely  free  from  prepossession.  But,  while  wri- 
ting-, I  endeavoured,  as  far  as  possible,  to  deduce  my  sentiments 
directly  from  the  scriptures.  After  executing  my  own  plan,  I 
examined  several  Pcedobaptist  publications,  a  few  quotations  from 
which  have  since  been  added,  and  was  surprized  to  find,  not  only 
a  great  similarity  of  argument,  but,  in  some  instancesj  a  striking 


PREFACE.  xi 

similarity  of  language  ;  and  that  in  cases,  where  I  verily  thought 
my  own  ideas  were  original.  This  is  mentioned,  not  as  a  recom- 
mendation of  the  present  work,  but  as  some  evidence  that  to  Pse- 
dobaptists,  at  leust,  the  scriptures  speak  one  language. 

Throughout  the  discussion,  I  have  used  great  plainness  of 
speech,  but  I  have  carefully  endeavoured  to  avoid  railing  accusa- 
tions. In  some  cases,  I  have  used  strong  language :  some,  per- 
haps, who  are  f^r  removed  from  the  ftVld  of  controversy,  may 
deem  too  strong:  but  I  have  felt  myself  justified  in  the  impor- 
tance of  the  subject.  It  is  a  serious  question,  in  my  mind,  wheth- 
er Psedobaptists,  in  general,  do  not  view  the  opposite  scheme 
with  too  little  aversion  ?  On  the  bare  supposition  that  we  are  right, 
that  system  argues  a  most  awful  dereliction  and  contempt  of  di- 
vine authority  It  strikes  at  the  coxstitutjow  of  the  church — 
the  foundation  which  God  has  laid  in  Zion.  Ought  such  a  scheme 
to  be  contemplated  with  calm  indifference  ?  Can  it  be  too  strong- 
ly reprobated  ?  If,  in  any  case,  that  precept  applies,  "  Be  ye  an- 
gry, and  sin  not,"'  is  not  this  one  ?— I  am  aware,  that  those  publi- 
cations, on  our  side  of  the  question,  which  have  been  written  with 
considerable  asperity  of  feeling,  are  often  read  with  disapproba- 
tion, on  that  account.  I  well  recollect  once  having  the  same  im- 
pression with  respect  to  Peter  Edwards'  work.  But  now,  with- 
out approving  of  all  that  author's  severity,  it  does  appear  to  me 
impracticable,  to  trace  the  Biiptist  scheme  through  all  its  wind- 
ings, and  ferret  out  all  its  absurdities,  without  sometimes  indulg- 
ing the  same  spirit.  This  Dialogue  was  undertaken  with  a  se- 
rious determination  to  guard  against  it.  But  I  soon  found,  that 
many  objections  were  presented,  which,  on  account  of  the  influ- 
ence they  possessed  over  the  uninformed  mind,  must  not  be  past 
unnoticed ;  and,  which  could  not  be  argued  down  in  a  serious 
manner,  without  degrading  one's  self  to  the  level  of  an  ignorant 
opposer.  On  this  account,  I  have  sometimes  indulged  in  satire. 
But  it  has  been  done  with  a  conscientious  regard  to  that  inspired 
precept,  "  Answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly,  lest  he  be  -vise  in  his 
own  conceit"  When  a  man,  professing  to  discuss  a  religious  to- 
pick,  evades  argument,  and  resorts  to  ridicule  for  his  defence,  it 
seems  proper  to  let  him  feel  the  point  of  his  own  weapon.  It  is 
reasonable  to  suppose,  that  he  can  feel  no  other.  But,  I  believe 
it  will  be  found,  that,  in  no  case,  have  I  resorted  to  this  as  "  the 
test  of  truth,"  or  for  the  defence  of  my  own  system. 

One  objection  to  publishing  at  all  on  this  subject,  had,  for  a 
while,  considerable  influence  on  my  mind.  It  was  the  apprehen- 
sion that  it  might  operate  as  a  discouragement  to  united  exertion, 
in  the  noble  institutions  of  the  present  day,  for  disseminating  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  But  I  am  now  perfectly  satisfied,  as  far  as  my 
acquaintance  extends,  that  this  will  not  be  the  effect.  Those 
few  Baptists  who  have  already  united  with  us  in  the  holy  work, 
are  possessed  of  a  spirit  and  views  too  liberal,  to  resent  that  in 
others,  which  is  the  acknowledged  privilege  of  all  denominations ; 
and  which,  in  their  church,  in  particular,  is  esteemed  a  cardinal 
virtue.  Those  who  have  not  done  so,  we  may  be  assured,  from 
the  attempts  which  have  been  already  made,  never  mil,  until  the 


xii  PREFACE. 

narrow  bigotry  of  that  communion  is  destroyed.  Every  attempt, 
therefore,  to  produce  this  effect,  will  ultimately  tend  to  the  fur- 
therance of  the  gospel.  In  this  point  of  view,  the  path  of  duty 
appeared  perfectly  plain.— Another  consideration  rendered  it  im- 
perious. When  we  see  a  sect,  whose  works  of  benevolence  and 
liberality  certainly  do  not  eclipse  those  of  other  denominations, 
endeavouring  to  monopolize  the  credit  of  all  the  religious  insti- 
tutions of  the  day,  and  hear  them  arrogantly  exclaiming,  "  The 

TEMPLE  OF  THE  LoRT),  THE  TEMPLE  OP  THE  L.ORT),  THE  TEMPLE  OF 

tu".  Lord  are  WE,"  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  as  a  watch- 
man of  Israel  I  could  not  forbear  to  lift  up  my  voice  against  these 
exclusive  claims. 

That  every  sentiment  contained  in  this  publication  will  be  ap- 
proved by  all  my  Pxdobaptist  brethren,  is  not  to  be  expected. 
On  some  minor  points  of  our  scheme,  it  is  well  known,  there  is 
some  diversity  of  sentiment.  But,  I  am  confident,  that  whatever 
is  written  with  candour,  will  receive  from  them  a  candid  consid- 
eration :  and  that  real  or  supposed  errors  will  be  pointed  out  in 
the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  That  it  will  have  to  encounter  an  oppo- 
sition of  a  more  hostile  and  determinate  character,  is  what  I 
expect,  and  what  I  am  prepared  to  meet  with  That  it  will  be  the 
means  of  converting  a  single  Baptist  from  the  errors  of  his 
scheme,  is  what  1  dare  not  expect.  Such  is  the  influence  of  pre- 
judice over  the  human  mind,  that  the  conversion  of  one  of  that 
people,  may  be  considered  next  to  a  miracle.  Therefore,  I  have 
not  been  so  chimerical  as  to  anticipate  the  accomplishment  of 
that  object.  I  have  aimed  no  higher  than  to  confirm  Paedobar- 
tists  in  their  sentiments  ;  and,  to  prevent  those  who,  as  yet,  have 
adopted  no  system,  from  embracing  error.  But,  if  it  should  not 
produce  even  this  effect,  I  shall  never  regret  my  labour.  The  en  - 
tire  satisfaction  of  my  own  mind,  which  the  investigation  has  pro- 
duced, is  sufficient  to  repay  me  for  all  my  trouble.  T,  therefore, 
commit  the  work  to  the  blessing  of  God,  and  the  candid  perusal 
of  the  Christian  publick. 

THE  AUTHOR. 

Cambridge,  January  12,  1813. 

V.  S.  I  had  intended  to  subjoin  to  this  publication,  Dr.  W'ith- 
erspooVs  Letters,  on  the  education  of  children  ;  which  1  have 
long  designed  to  introduce  into  every  family  of  my  congregation, 
as  containing  the  best  and  most  concise  system  of  domestic  poli- 
cy with  which  I  am  acquainted.  But,  j».s  my  own  work  has  swol- 
len one  third  larger  than  was  proposed,  I  am  obliged,  for  the  pre- 
sent, to  relinquish  the  design  ;  hoping'  that,  in  some  other  waj', 
I  shall  soon  be  able  to  furnish  my  people,  and  as  many  others  as 
may  wish  it,  with  that  excellent  manual. 


1 

A  DIALOGUE,  &c. 


LEBBEUS,  a  Baptist— EUGENIUS,  a  Padobaptisl 
SECTION  I. 

Lcbbeus.  JL  HAVE  taken  the  liberty  to 
call  upon  you  this  morning  for  the  purpose 
of  conversing,  if  you  have  leisure,  on  the 
subject  of  the  discourses  you  delivered  yes-4 
terday. 

Eugenius.  My  time  is  usually  occupied, 
but  I  can  generally  arrange  my  business  so 
as  to  enjoy  the  society  of  friends  :  and,  if  it 
will  afford  you  any  gratification,  I  shall  free- 
ly devote  as  much  of  this  day  as  you  please 
to  the  subject  you  propose,  provided  we  can 
converse  with  freedom  and  candour. 

Leb.  That,  I  assure  you,  is  my  intention* 
I  consider  the  subject  as  vastly  important 
to  the  external  order  of  the  church,  and  am 
convinced  that  it  ought  to  be  examined  with 
great  candour  and  deliberation.  I  was  in- 
duced to  attend  your  meeting  yesterday, 
because  I  had  understood  that  you  were  to 
preach  on  baptism;  and,  as  T  had  never  heard 
that  subject  discussed,  in  the  pulpit,  by  any 
Of  your  denomination,  and  had  often  heard 


14 

it  said,  that  the  reason  was,  you  have  no 
foundation  in  the  scriptures  for  your  senti- 
ments and  practice,  I  resolved  to  go  and 
hear  what  you  could  say.  And,  although 
your  arguments  have  not  convinced  me  that 
you  are  right,  I  am  free  to  acknowledge, 
that  there  is  more  of  the  appearance  of  truth 
on  your  side,  than  I  had  ever  imagined.  I 
have,  therefore,  come  with  a  fixed  resolution 
to  canvass  the  subject,  as  far  as  1  am  able, 
with  an  unprejudiced  mind. 

Eug.  I  am  happy,  sir,  to  see  you  in  such 
a  state  of  mind  :  and,  although  I  may  not  be 
able  to  set  the  subject  in  stronger  light  than 
has  been  done  by  my  brethren  a  thousand 
times  before;  yet,  I  have  no  doubt,  if  you 
will  review  the  arguments  without  preju- 
dice, your  conviction  of  the  correctness  of 
our  system  will  be  complete.  Prejudice 
is  the  great  enemy  of  truth.  It  is  a  secret 
and  invisible  enemy.  It  has  full  possession 
of  the  minds  of  multitudes,  who  fondly  im- 
agine that  they  are  entirely  free  from  its  in- 
fluence. It  operates  like  derangement  in 
an  acute  disease:  the  unhappy  subject  sup- 
poses himself  in  perfect  health,  while,  at  the 
same  time,  his  disorder  is  accumulating 
strength,  and  rapidly  advancing  to  the  most 
alarming  crisis.  In  like  manner,  those 
who  are  most  completely  under  the  domin- 
ion of  prejudice,  are  ordinarily  most  apt  to 
think  that  they  are  free  from  its  influence. 
In  a  word,  prejudice  is  the  devil's  strong 
hold  in  the  human  heart. 


15 

The  subject  of  baptism,  as  you  have  re 
marked,  is,  indeed,  one  of  great  importance 
and,  therefore,  it  is  a  point  of  no  trifling  con 
sequence,  which  divides  the  Baptist  and  Pse 
dobaptist  churches.  Your  denomination  arc 
apt  to  think,  from  the  importance  which  the) 
attach  to  the  mode,  that  the  whole  responsi 
bility  rests  upon  us;  that  if  we  should  prove 
our  sentiments  and  practice  to  be  correct 
they  cannot  be  far  from  right.  But  the  modi 
is  of  little  consequence,  compared  with  tin 
proper  subjects.  Therefore,  the  grand  ques 
lion  at  issue  involves  the  very  existence  o 
the  church. — As  to  what  you  observed  w7itl 
respect  to  our  ministers*  seldom  preaching 
on  the  subject, I  can  assure  you,  it  is  not  froir 
any  consciousness  of  the  want  of  evidence 
to  support  our  system;  but  from  an  aversior 
to  controversy,  at  all  times,  and  more  espe 
cially  in  seasons  of  special  attention  to  re 
ligion.  We  have  no  favourable  opinion  o\ 
those  "  revivals,"  so  called,  which  are  pro- 
moted by  the  rancour  and  acrimony  of  con- 
troversial preaching  about  modes  and  forms, 
Nothing  is  more  hostile  than  contention,  to 
a  revival  of  "pure  and  undefiled  religion. ,: 
And  this,  you  know,  is  the  only  time  when 
an  attack  is  provoked  by  your  denomina- 
tion. In  seasons  of  declension,  your  people 
exhibit  quite  a  catholic  spirit.  Your  minis- 
ters will  then  exchange  with  ours,  or  labour 
together  in  one  common  field.  Your  mem- 
bers will  mingle  their  prayers  and  exhorta- 
tions with  ours.    But,  the  moment  the  pub* 


16 

lie  attention  is  awakened,  and  same  begin  to 
be  concerned  for  their  souls'  salvation,  from 
an  apprehension  that  your  catholic  conduct 
will  not  be  likely  to  make  the  new  converts 
thorough-going  Baptists,  or,  that  you  can- 
not have  a  favourable  opportunity  to  instil 
into  their  minds  your  own  peculiar  senti- 
ments, or,  from  some  other  cause,  best 
known  to  yourselves,  you  immediately  be- 
gin to  withdraw,  and  set  up  separate  altars. 
And  then  the  subject  of  baptism  becomes 
the  theme  of  almost  every  sermon  and  ex- 
hortation, and  the  topic  of  conversation  from 
house  to  house.  And,  in  administering  the 
holy  ordinance  of  baptism,  instead  of  illus- 
trating clearly  the  nature  and  design  of  the 
institution,  pointing  out  the  difference  be- 
tween the  external  sign  and  the  thing  signi- 
fied thereby,  warning  the  subjects  against 
trusting  to  the  form,  we  hear  nothing  but 
the  cry,  "  this  is  the  way,  the  only  way — this 
is  the  path  our  Saviour  trod  ;y  accompanied 
with  a  torrent  of  raillery  against  all  other 
denominations;  bantering  and  defiance  to 
every  opposer.  What  opinion  can  a  candid 
mind  entertain  of  such  conduct,  and  of  those 
whose  religion  is  produced  and  kept  alive 
by  such  means?  I  venture  to  pronounce  it 
essentially  different  from  the  religion  of  the 
gospel.  Is  it  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
Lord  will  bless,  to  the  conviction  and  con- 
version of  sinners,  those  discourses  which  re- 
spect solely  the  externals  of  religion,  while 
the  great  and  important  doctrines  and  pre- 


17 

eepts  of  the  gospel  are  thrown  into  the  back 
ground?  It  is  the  preaching  of  repentance, 
faith,  regeneration,  sovereign  grace,  and  o- 
ther  concomitant  truths,  and  not  empty  de- 
clamation on  water  baptism  and  other  modes 
and  forms,  (much  less  inveighing  against  o- 
ther  denominations,)  which  is  usually  sancti- 
fied to  the  conversion  of  sinners,  and  to  the 
comfort,  and  edification  of  believers.  We 
consider  the  externals  of  religion  important 
in  their  place,  and  we  endeavour  to  illus- 
trate and  enforce  them  in  their  proper  place ; 
but,  after  all,  we  do  not  forget  that  they  are 
mere  externals.  Hence,  we  cannot  indulge 
ourselves  in  railing  accusations  against  those 
wTho  may  differ  from  us  on  these  subjects. 
This  is  our  only  reason,  and,  1  think  I  may 
say,  a  sufficient  one  too,  for  not  following 
examples  which  are  so  frequently  presented 
on  the  other  side.  I  will  only  add,  that 
whenever  any  of  our  ministers  have  depart- 
ed from  this  course,  and  preached  pointedly 
against  your  system,  your  people,  instead 
of  approving  of  what  they  consider  a  cardi- 
nal virtue  in  their  own  conduct,  have  uni- 
formly raised  the  hue  and  cry  of  popery  or 
persecution,  thereby  endeavouring  to  cast 
on  us  the  odium  which  attaches,  or  ought 
to  attach,  to  their  own  practice. — But  I  must- 
crave  your  pardon  for  these  plain  remarks- 
It  is  not  my  design  to  injure  your  feelings* 
but  the  idea  you  suggested,  requires  a  point-* 
ed  answer, 

2* 


Leb.  You  have  not  injured  my  feelings 
in  the  least.  I  am  sensible  there  is  too  much 
occasion  for  the  strictures  you  have  made. 
I  thank  you  for  your  plainness,  and  I  wish 
you  to  use  the  utmost  freedom,  throughout 
our  interview. 

Eug.  You  will  please  to  suggest  that  me- 
thod of  conducting  the  discussion,  which  will- 
be  most  agreeable  to  your  own  mind. 

Leb.  Why,  sir,  I  wish  to  converse  at  large 
on  the  subject ;  and,  if  you  would  indulge 
me  in  the  request,  I  should  be  happy  to  hear 
you  repeat  the  leading  arguments  of  the  dis- 
courses you  delivered  yesterday,  with  such 
remarks  as  you  may  be  induced  to  make  in 
answer  to  my  inquiries  and  objections. 

Eug.  This  course  will  be  perfectly  agree- 
able to  me;  and  I  pray  God  that  it  may  be 
profitable  to  us  both. 

Leb.  I  perceived,  from  the  method  you? 
pursued  in  the  discussion  of  the  subject  yes- 
terday, that  "the  sameness  of  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  churches,"  is  regarded  as  the 
foundation  of  your  whole  system.  Now,  I 
have  this  objection  or  difficulty,  in  regard 
to  that  course*  The  attempt  to  "  blend  these 
churches,  carrying  the  Christian  church 
back,  and  bringing  the  Jewish  church  for-* 
ward,"  and  that  constant  reference  to  the 
Old  Testament,  for  proof  of  infant  member- 
ship, "  seems  to  betray  a  consciousness  of 
the  want  of  evidence  to  support  it  in  the 
New  Testament/' 


19 

Eug.  We  do,  indeed,  consider  "the  same- 
ness of  the  church,.*'*  as  the  foundation  of 
our  scheme;  and,  if  this  point  is  established, 
it  is  impossible  to  avoid  the  consequences. 
Your  ministers  are  fully  sensible  of  this, 
and  hence  their  constant  endeavours,  by  so- 
phistry and  ridicule,  by  dogmatical  asser- 
tion and  empty  declamation,  to  make  their 
people  reject  the  sentiment.  As  to  your 
remark  about  "bringing  one  church  forward 
and  carrying  the  other  back,"  it  is  altogeth- 
er unfounded;  for  we  do  neither.  We  do 
not  alter  their  relative  situation  at  all:  we 
take  them  precisely  where  we  find  them  in 
the  word  of  God.  There  is  no  chasm  be- 
tween the  two  dispensations.  The  one  stood 
till  the  other  was  instituted.  The  same  sove- 
reign act  that  removed  the  one,  established 
the  other  in  its  place,  and  on  the  same  foun- 
dation. On  our  referring  to  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, as  a  source  of  evidence,  I  shall  only 
remark,  that  I  desire  to  bless  God,  I  was 
brought  up  to  respect  the  whole  revealed 
will  of  Heaven;  and  I  have  never  yet  learn- 
ed, and  I  hope  I  never  shall  learn,  to  reject 
a  single  tittle  of  that  revelation.  Therefore 
I  submit  as  cheerfully  to  the  authority  of 
the  Old  Testament,  as  to  that  of  the  New. 


*  By  the  "  sameness  of  the  church,"  is  meant,  that  it  has  been 
composedjof  the  same  constituent  parts  in  all  ages  :  that  the  Jews 
were  required  to  profess  the  same  religion  which  Christians  do  : 
that  both  were  by  profession  "  the  people  of  God,"  or  the  visible 
church  ;  and  that  the  only  difference  between  them  arises  from 
the  different  external  rites  and  forms,  which,  by  divine  appoint- 
ment, have  been  observed  under  the  two  dispensations.  Their 
cosstitxtiox  is  one,  though  their  statftu-laws  are.  different. 


2tf 

Leb.  But,  certainly,  you  do  not  suppose- 
that  all  the  precepts  of  the  Old  Testament 
are  still  obligatory? 

Mag.  No;  I  do  not.     There  were  many 
rites  and  ceremonies,  under  the  former  dis- 
pensation, which,  from  their  nature,  were 
evidently  designed  to  be  confined  to  that 
dispensation;  the  repeal  of  which  was  fore- 
told by  the  prophets,  and  accomplished  by 
our  Lord.     But,  whatever  he  has  left  unal- 
tered, still  challenges- the  obedience  of  men. 
And  here  I  will  not  only  advance  that  sen- 
timent, so  obnoxious  to  some  of  your  peo- 
ple, that  "it  requires  the  same  authority  to 
repeal  a  law  that  it  did  to  enact  it ;"  but  I 
will  add,  that  the  repeal  of  part  of  a  law,  in- 
stead of  invalidating  the  remaining  part  evi- 
dently gives  it  a  new  sanction;  for  it  is  an 
implicit  acknowledgment,  that  so  far  it  is  a- 
greeable  to  the  existing  administration. — 
There  are  precepts  in  the  New  Testament, 
which,  from  their  nature,  or  the  circumstan- 
ces under  which  they  were  delivered,  were 
evidently  limited  in  their  operation;  such 
as  the  injunction  of  the  apostles,  "  to  abstain 
from  things  strangled,  and  from  blood;"  and 
yet  no  man,  in  his  senses,  ever  supposed  that 
he  must  obey  these,  or  reject  the  whole  of 
the  New  Testament. 

Leb.  But,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose, 
that  if  infant  membership  is  still  the  will  of 
Heaven,  it  wTould  have  been  explicitly  re- 
vealed in  the  New  Testament? 
.Eug..  Without  admitting  that  the  New  Te^ 


2t 

lament  is  silent  on  this  point,  (for  I  believe 
I  can  shew  you,  in  its  proper  place,  that  it 
is  not,)  I  will  only  remark  here,  that  an  ex- 
plicit revelation  would  be  altogether  need- 
less. Divine  revelation  is  given  to  rational 
beings,  and  not  to  mere  idiots.     When  the 

>  Lord  has  once  delivered  a  precept,  not  lim- 
ited in  its  nature,  we  know  that  it  must  be 
obligatory  until  he  explicitly  repeals  it. — 
When,  upon  a  change  of  administration,  the 
laws  are  amended  in  certain  particulars,  it 

!  is  unnecessary  for  the  legislature  to  declare 
that  those  parts  which  are  not  amended,  are 
still  in  force.  Or,  to  use  another  similitude* 
still  more  to  the  case  in  hand,  when  one  law 
is  repealed,  and  another  enacted  in  its  place* 

i  it  is  unnecessary  for  the  legislature  to  de- 
clare that  this  law  is  not  designed  to  abro- 
gate the  constitution,  which  is  the  founda- 
tion of  the  government.  Such  a  declaration 
would  be  an  insult  to  common  sense.  To 
suppose  it  necessary,  is  to  suppose  that  the 
people  are  little  better  than  natural  fools. 

Leb.  But,  sir,  if  you  admit  tbal  the  whole 
ceremonial  economy  is  abrogated,  I  think 
you  admit  all  that  is  necessary;  for  "you 
might  as  well  pay  tyihes,  observe  the  pass- 
over,  offer  sacrifice,  &c.  as  to  retain  infant 
membership." 

Eug.  I  freely  admit,  thai  the  whole  of  the 
ceremonial  law  is  annulled  ;  but,  unhappily 
for  your  system,  infant  membership  is  no 
part  of  that  law.  It  was  instituted  in  the 
ancient   church,    four  hundred  and  thirty 


■22 

years  before  that  law  had  existence.  And 
this  was  what  I  designed  to  represent,  by 
the  similitude  which  I  used  last;  but  which, 
it  seems,  you  did  not  understand.  The  cov- 
enant made  with  Abraham,  is  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  church — that  compact,  which 
forms  the  basis,  or  gives  existence  to  the 
community.  The  rites  an  I  forms  which  were 
afterwards  ordained  from  time  to  time,  of 
which  the  ceremonial  law  was  a  part,  were 
the  laws  of  the  commonwealth — the  mode 
of  administering  the  covenant.  These,  there- 
fore, may  ail  be  repealed,  and  others  enact- 
ed in  their  stead  ;  and  yet  the  constitution 
remain  unaltered.  This,  the  apostle  ex- 
pressly declares,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians.  "And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant 
which  was  confirmed  before  of  God  in  Christ, 
the  law,  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years  after,  cannot  disannul  that  it  should 
make  the  promise  of  none  effect." — Gal.  iii. 
17.  Our  Saviour,  also,  expressly  recogni- 
sed the  distinct  and  diverse  origin  of  circum- 
cision, and  the  ceremonial  law,  when  he  ob- 
served to  the  Jews,  "Moses,  therefore,  gave 
unto  you  circumcision;  not  because  it  is  of 
.Moses,  out  of  the  father s>  8Cg" — John  vii.  22. 
This  important  distinction  appears  to  have 
been  entirely  overlooked  by  your  declaim- 
ed against  infant  membership. 

Leo.  This,  I  acknowledge,,  is  to  me  a  new 
idea,  and  is  entitled  to  serious  consideration. 
But,  with  respect  to  the  text  you  quoted 
from  GalaUans,  Dr.  Gill  says,  the  apostle 


23 

Ci  does  not  there  refer  to  the  covenant  of  cir* 
cumcision,  because  the  time  between  them 
does  not  agree;  there  being  but  about  four 
hundred  years." 

Bug.  I  do  not  pretend  that  the  apostle 
there  refers  to  the  rite  of  circumcision.  This, 
like  the  ceremonial  economy,  I  consider  as 
one  of  the  laws  of  the  community,  which 
were  liable  to  change.  But  the  covenant, 
which  is  the  constitution  of  the  church,  and 
had  respect  to  Abraham's  posterity,  as  well 
as  himself,  was  established  almost  thirty 
years  before  that  time;  and  thus  you  see  the 
time  does  correspond  exactly.  It  was  pre- 
cisely four  hundred  and  thirty  years  from  the 
time  of  God's  first  covenanting  with  Abra- 
ham, to  the  departure  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt. 
Besides  this,  there  is  the  same  striking  coin- 
cidence between  that  passage  and  the  other 
writings  of  Moses.  When  the  Lord  appear- 
ed to  Abraham  in  Hebron,  he  there  renew- 
ed the  covenant  which  he  had  previously 
made,  and  then  adds,  "  Know,  of  a  surety, 
that  thy  seed  shall  be  a  stranger  in  a  land 
that  is  not  theirs,  and  shall  serve  them,  and 
they  shall  afflict  them  four  hundred  years." 
— Gen.  xv.  13.  This  period,  you  will  ob- 
serve, is  stated  with  exclusive  reference  to 
Abraham's  posterity;  and  here,  we  find,  that 
from  the  birth  of  Isaac  to  the  emancipation 
of  Israel  from  Egypt,  is  exactly  four  hun- 
dred years.  Again,  on  the  departure  of  Is- 
rael from  Egypt,  Moses  writes,  "Now,  the 
sojourning  of  the  children  of  Israel,  who 


24 

dwelt  in  Egypt,  was  four  hundred  and  thir- 
ty years. — Ex.xii.40.  These  words  are  used 
with  singular  precision ;  and  have  refer- 
ence not  merely  to  Abraham's  posterity, 
but  to  himself  with  them;  and  include  the 
whole  period,  from  the  time  of  the  Lord's 
first  entering  into  covenant  with  him,  to 
the  emancipation  of  Israel.  For,  although 
the  greater  part  of  Abraham's  life,  after  he 
was  called  of  God,  was  spent  in  the  land  of 
Canaan,  yet  even  there  he  was  only  a  so- 
journer. This,  you  recollect,  is  expressly 
declared  by  St.  Stephen:  "He  removed  him 
into  this  land,  wherein  ye  now  dwell.  And 
he  gave  him  none  inheritance  in  it;  no,  not 
so  much  as  to  set  his  foot  on;  yet  he  pro- 
mised that  he  would  give  it  to  him,  and  to  his 
seed  after  him." — Acts  vii.  4,  5.  Hence  Mo- 
ses says,  "The  sojourning  of  the  children  of 
Israel,"  (the  name  by  which  the  church  was 
then  usually  distinguished)  "who  dwelt  inE- 
gypt"  {their  residence  in  Egypt  is  spoken  of 
as  only  a  part  of  the  time  of  their  sojourn- 
ing) "was  four  hundred  and  thirty  years." 
Hence,  also,  we  find,  that  from  the  first 
calling  of  Abraham  to  the  egress  of  Is- 
rael, from  Egypt,  was  just  four  hundred 
and  thirty  years;  and,  from  the  particu- 
larity of  Moses'  words,  it  would  seem  to 
be  this  even  to  a  day  :  for,  he  adds,  "  And 
it  came  to  pass,  at  the  end  of  the  four  hun- 
dred and  thirty  years,  even  the  self-same  day- 
it  came  to  pass,  that  all  the  hosts  of  the  Lord 
went  out  from  the  land  of  Egypt."     This  e- 


25 

vent,  you  know,  took  place  only  about  two 
months  before  the  giving  of  the  law  from  Si- 
nai;  and  therefore  it  is  evident,  that  the  apos- 
tle does  refer  to  the  original  covenant  made 
with  Abraham,  which  he  declares  could  not 
be  invalidated  by  the  ceremonial  law.  If, 
then,  the  enactment  of  that  law  did  not  annul 
the  original  covenant,  its  repeal  could  not 
affect  it. 

Leo.  That  the  apostle  refers  to  the  cove- 
nant made  with  Abraham,  in  Chaldea,  Dr. 
Gill  admits;  and  also,  that  that  covenant  was 
"an  exhibition  and  manifestation  of  the  co- 
venant of  grace  to  Abraham."  But  the  co- 
venant of  circumcision  is  an  entirely  distinct 
covenant  from  that.  It  is  "  by  uniting  these, 
and  taking  occasion  from  the  term  covenant, 
because  applied  to  both;  also,  from  gospel 
believers  being  called  the  seed  of  Abraham," 
that  your  denomination  have  been  pleased 
"to  call  the  Christian  and  Jewish  church 
one  and  the  same.  This  passes  for  cur- 
rency with  such  as  do  not  examine  for  them- 
selves.'' 

Eug.  I  am  not  surprised  that  such  senti- 
ments as  you  have  now  suggested,  should 
"pass  for  currency"  or  sound  reasoning  a- 
mong  common  people,  who  have  little  ac- 
quaintance with  the  structure  of  human  lan- 
guage; but  that  they  should  be  passed  off  for 
"  good  coin,"  by  your  teachers,  who  are,  or 
ought  to  he,  men  of  some  information,  is  to 
me  a  matter  of  surprise,  if  they  lay  any  claim 
to  common  honesty.  "  The  promise  of  a  Sa- 
3 


26 

viour,"  and  what  you  are  pleased  to  call 
*'the  covenant  of  circumcision,"  are,  indeed, 
distinct  things;  just  as  distinct  as  a  promise 
in  a  covenant,  and  the  seal  or  token  of  that 
covenant,  are  distinct  things;  but  they  are 
not  distinct  covenants. 

JLeb.  But  the  Lord  says  expressly,  "  This 
is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep  between 
me  and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  ;  Eve- 
ry man-child  among  you  shall  be  circumci- 
sed." Gen.  xvii.  10.  Is  not  this  an  entirely 
distinct  covenant  from  that  which  the  Lord 
had  previously  made  with  him  ?    Gen.  xii.  I. 

Eug.  No  sir;  when  the  Lord  appeared  to 
Abraham,  as  recorded  in  Gen.  xvii.  he  did 
not  come  to  enter  into  a  new  covenant  with 
him,  but  merely  to  "  establish"  the  one  alrea- 
dy made,  by  instituting  a  visible  token,  by 
which,  the  existence  of  that  covenant  should 
be  known.  Hence  he  addressed  Abraham 
thus ;  "  As  for  me,  behold,  my  covenant  is 
with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a  father  of  many 
nations,  &c.  And  I  will  establish  my  cove- 
venant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee  in  their  generations,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant :  to  be  a  God  to  thee  and  to 
thy  seed  after  thee,"  Here  the  original  cove- 
nant, in  all  its  latitude,  is  renewed  and  es- 
tablished or  confirmed.  As  to  the  declara- 
tion in  the  10th  verse,  which  you.  have  quo- 
ted, it  is  nothing  more  than  a  common  fi- 
gure of  speech,  in  which  the  sign  is  put 
for  the  thing  signified.  There  is  no  more 
weight  in  your  argument  from  this  passage, 


27 

than  in  the  popish  doctrine  of  transubstanU- 
atioiiy  drawn  from  Christ's  words,  "This  is 
my  body.''  The  plain  meaning  of  the  pas- 
sage, is  "This  is  the  token  of  my  covenant, 
&c."  and  if  you  had  only  quoted  the  suc- 
ceeding verse,  you  would  have  found  this 
stated  in  the  most  explicit  terms.  "  And  ye 
shall  circumcise  the  flesh  of  your  foreskin; 
and  it  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  be- 
twixt me  and  you."  But,  according  to  your 
construction,  circumcision  is  both  the  cove- 
nant and  the  token  of  the  covenant — the  sign 
and  the  thing  signified  by  that  sign:  that  is, 
it  is  itself,  and  the  token  or  sign  of  itself.— 
Therefore  I  repeat  what  I  have  already  said, 
I  am  not  surprised  that  common  people 
should  be  imposed  upon  by  such  contempt- 
ible sophistry ;  but  when  your  teachers  make 
use  of  it  to  persuade  their  hearers  that  the 
Abrahamic  covenant  is  not  the  covenant  of 
grace,  it  proves  incontrovertible  one  of  two 
things  ;  that  they  are  either  grossly  ignorant, 
or  basely  dishonest.  But  there  is  a  reason 
for  all  this  sophistry.  The  covenant  which 
the  Lord  had  made  with  Abraham  contains 
this  gracious  promise,  "  to  be  a  God  unto 
thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee."  This  ori- 
ginal covenant  Dr.  Gill  acknowledges,  was 
"an  exhibition  and  manifestation  of  thecove- 
nant  of  grace."  Now  to  admit  that  circum- 
cision was  the  seal  of  this  covenant  is  to  sur- 
render the  whole  point  in  dispute.  Hence, 
they  have  no  way  left  but  to  make  it  out 
that  the  rile  of  circumcision^  instead  of  being 


28 

nn  appendage  to  the  original  covenant,  is  an 
entirely  distinct  institution:  but  with  what 
success,  or  rather  absurdity,  glaring  absurd- 
ity, 1  have  shewn  you. 

Leb.  I  must  confess  I  am  astonished  at 
this  view  of  the  subject.  I  really  believed 
that  these  two  things  were  entirely  distinct. 
But  the  explanation  you  have  given  exhibits 
the  point  in  quite  a  different  light. 

Eug.  It  is  no  explanation  Lebbeus;  it  is 
the  plain  declaration  of  God  himself,  that 
circumcision  is  the  token  or  seal  of  that  co- 
venant which  contained  all  the  blessings, 
both  temporal  and  spiritual,  promised  to 
Abraham  and  his  seed. 

Leb.  I  observed  in  your  discourse,  yes- 
terday, that  you  made  frequent  use  of  the 
word  "seal,"  in  reference  to  the  special  or- 
dinances of  the  gospel.  I  do  not  know  but 
you  are  correct  in  so  doing,  but  1  have 
heard  some  of  our  ministers  express  a  "  wish 
that  your  denomination  would  lay  it  aside, 
as  it  sounds  Jewish,  or  rather  popish,  in  the 
ears  of  baptists." 

Eug.  If  they  had  said,  it  sounds  too  evan- 
gelical or  apostolical  for  their  scheme,  they 
would  have  come  much  nearer  the  truth: — 
I  am  sure  there  is  nothing  Jewish  in  it,  for 
the  word  was  never  used  under  that  dispen- 
sation in  reference  to  religion.  It  is  a  term 
of  pure  gospel  origin,  and  the  apostle  de- 
clares that  it  was  applicable  to  circumcision, 
for  he  calls  it  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith."  And  as  to  its  being  popish,  I  shall 


only  observe,  that  if  that  church  had  deri- 
ved all  its  doctrines  and  precepts  and  max- 
ims and  terms  from  the  gospel,  as  directly  as 
this  term,  it  had  never  been  the  reproach 
and  scourge  of  the  Christian  world.  I  can 
assure  you,  my  friend,  we  shall  never  "  lay 
aside"  gospel  terms  in  condescension  to  the 
prejudices  of  baptists. 

Led.  I  think  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
you  are  correct  in  referring  the  apostle's 
words  to  the  original  covenant.  But  if,  as 
I  just  now  understood  you  to  admit,  circum- 
cision was  not  a  part  of  the  original  cove- 
nant, but  instituted  afterwards,  it  appears 
to  me  that  on  your  own  principles,  you  ex- 
clude infant  membership. 

jEug.  Not  at  all:  the  covenant,  as  origi- 
nally made  with  Abraham,  embraced  his 
seed  as  well  as  himself,  as  fully  as  it  did  at  a- 
ny  subsequent  renewal  of  it.  But  the  rite 
of  circumcision,  which  was  to  be  the  token 
of  that  covenant,  or  the  public  mark  by  which 
membership  was  to  be  recognised  under  that 
dispensation,  was  not  then  instituted;  and 
for  a  very  good  reason :  the  promised  seed 
was  not  then  born.  Hence,  though  the  Lord 
appeared  to  Abraham  several  times  after  he 
first  entered  into  covenant  with  him,  and 
at  each  of  those  times  renewed  and  further 
explained  the  terms  of  that  covenant,  yet 
he  never  instituted  the  rite  of  circumcision 
till  the  very  year  before  the  birth  of  Isaac. 

Leb.  But  in  as  much  as  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision was  by  divine  appointment  applied  *° 

3* 


30 

Abraham's  household,  consisting  of  his  son 
Ishmael  and  his  servants,  as  soon  as  it  was 
instituted,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose 
that,  if  it  had  been  designed  to  be  the  token  of 
the  original  covenant,  it  would  have  been 
instituted  at  the  same  time? 

Eug.  No  sir  :  the  covenant  in  its  origin, 
and  with  the  explanations  which  the  Lord 
condescended  to  give  from  time  to  time, 
had  reference  all  along  to  Isaac  as  the  pro- 
mised seed.  Hence,  although  the  seal  was 
by  divine  direction  applied  to  those  who 
then  composed  Abrahams  household,  yet 
the  Lord  states  explicitly  that  it  was  insti- 
tuted with  peculiar  reference  to  Isaac.  He 
graciously  assures  him  that  "for  his  (Abra- 
ham's) sake  he  will  bless  his  son  Ishmael : 
But,  says  he,  my  covenant  will  I  establish 
with  Isaac,  which  Sarah  shall  bear  unto  thee, 
at  this  set  time,  in  the  next  year."  Gen. 
xvii.  19 — 21.  This  sentiment,  it  seems,  A- 
braham  did  not  distinctly  understand  until 
after  the  birth  of  Isaac.  Then,  when  Sarah 
discovered  Ishmael  mocking,  she  said  unto 
Abraham  "  Cast  out  this  bond-woman  and 
her  son,  for  the  son  of  this  bond  woman 
shall  not  be  heir  with  my  son,  even  with 
Isaac  :  And  the  thing  was  very  grievous  in 
Abraham's  sight,  because  of  his  son.  And 
Godsaid  unto  Abraham,  let  it  not  be  grie- 
vous in  thy  sight,  because  of  the  lad  and 
because  of  the  bond-woman  ;  in  all  that  Sa- 
rah hath  said  unto  thee,  hearken  unto  her 
Toice,  for  in  Isaac  shall  thy  seed  be  called  J  ^ 


31 

Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  the  covenant  with 
its  appointed  seal  was  instituted  with  pecu- 
liar reference  to  Isaac  and  his  posterity. — 
And  here  we  discover  the  true  reason  why 
the  token  of  the  covenant  was  not  appoint- 
ed until  just  before  his  birth. 

Leb.  But,  after  all  you  have  said,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  that  the  Apostle's  words,  upon 
which  you  have  been  arguing,  have  no  ref- 
erence to  infant  membership.  Nay,  in  the 
verse  immediately  preceding  that  passage, 
he  expressly  declares,  that  allusion  is  not 
made  to  Abraham's  natural  posterity,  but  to 
Christ.  "  Now  to  Abraham  and  his  seed 
were  the  promises  made.  He  saith  not, 
and  to  seeds,  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one, 
and  to  thy  seed,  which  is  Christ."  Gal. 
iii.  16. 

Eug.  If  this  reasoning  of  yours  proves 
any  thing,  it  proves  too  much  for  your  sys- 
tem. It  goes  to  shew  that  Abraham's  na- 
tural posterity  were  in  no  sense  included  in 
the  covenant.  This  covenant,  like  every 
other,  consists  of  two  parts.  Abraham  pro- 
mises obedience.  On  this  condition  the 
Lord  graciously  promises  to  reward  him. 
Now  the  divine  promise  is  not  confined  to 
a  single  object  ;  it  embraces  several.  The 
first  is  to  "  make  of  him  a  great  nation" — 
then,  "  to  bless  him  and  his  seed  and  to 
make  them  a  blessing,  and  to  defend  them 
from  all  their  enemies."  These  promises 
have  exclusive  reference  to  his  natural  pos- 
terity.    And  finally,  as  the  foundation  of 


32 

the  whole  covenant,  he  promises,  "And  in 
thee"  i.e.  as  it  is  afterwards  explained,  "  in 
thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth 
be  blessed."  This  last  promise  refers  to 
Christ,  as  the  apostle  expressly  declares. 
Turn  back  to  the  8th  verse  of  the  chapter, 
and  vou  will  find  this  declaration.  "  And 
the  scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would 
justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached 
before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham  saying,  In 
thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed."  Now  it 
is  to  this  part  of  the  covenant  that  the  apos- 
tle all  along  refers,  and  particularly  in  the 
16th  verse,  where  he  applies  the  word  seed9 
in  its  singular  form,  to  Christ.  But  then, 
in  the  succeeding  verse  he  affirms,  "  This  I 
say,  that  the  covenant  that  was  confirmed 
before  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was 
four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot 
disannul  that  it  should  make  the  promise  of 
none  effect."  Therefore,  I  repeat  my  for- 
mer concluson,  that  if  the  enactment  of  that 
law  did  not  destroy  the  original  covenant, 
its  repeal  could  not  effect  it.  And  if  one 
part  of  the  covenant  stands  good,  the  other 
does.  And,  therefore,  though  all  the  rites 
and  ceremonies  which  were  from  time  to 
time  ordained  under  the  former  dispensa- 
tion of  the  covenant,  were  repealed  at  the 
commencement  of  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, and  other  rites  instituted  in  their  stead, 
yet  that  original  covenant,  which  is  the  con- 
stitution of  the  church,  remains  in  all  its 
force.     Hence  the  seed  of  believers  being 


33 

included  in  the  covenant,  their  standing 
cannot  be  affected  by  the  abrogation  of  the 
ceremonial  law. 

Leb.  I  have  already  prolonged  this  pre- 
liminary discussion  far  beyond  what  I 
expected  or  intended,  and  I  am  almost 
tired  of  suggesting  things,  which  present  dif- 
ficulties to  my  mind,  but  which  vou  seem 
prepared  to  dispose  of  so  readily.  But  a- 
nother  thought  occurs  so  me,  which,  if  your 
patience  is  not  yet  exhausted,  I  should  be 
glad  to  mention. 

Eng.  Pray,  sir,  feel  entirely  at  ease  on 
the  score  of  my  patience  ;  I  shall  cheerful- 
ly devote  the  day  to  your  service,  and  an- 
other if  it  should  be  necessary.  I  certainly 
wish  you  to  suggest  every  objection  which 
occurs  to  your  mind  as  we  proceed,  for  un^ 
less  you  do  this,  I  cannot  expect  you  to 
weigh  with  candour  the  arguments  I  shall 
urge. 

Leb.  The  idea  which  I  alluded  to,  is  this : 
"The  plain  scripture  fact  seems  to  be,  that 
Abraham  was  a  type  of  Christ,  and  the 
promise  that  his  seed  should  be  as  the  stars 
of  heaven  and  the  sand  of  tiie  sea  for  multi- 
tude, if  it  had  any  connexion  with  the  cov- 
enant  of  grace,  it  was  in  Christ.  Agreea- 
ble to  Isaiah,  he  shall  see  of  his  seed  and 
be  satisfied. — Was  not  the  promise  (Gen. 
xviii.  18.)  in  Christ  ?  where  God  said  ail  the 
nations  of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him. 
Have  all  the  nations,  or  individuals,  who 
have  shared  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  beea. 


34 

in  Abraham?  or  have  they  been  in  him  as 
a  type  of  Abraham's  God?  We  all  know 
that  they  have  not  been  in  him  naturally, 
but  they  have  all  been  in  Christ.  By  keep- 
ing Abraham's  typical  character  in  view, 
we  are  able  to  understand  without  difficulty 
those  passages  of  scripture  which  speak  of 
him  as  heir  of  the  world,  the  father  of  all 
them  thai  believe,  &c.  but,  on  any  other 
construction,  you  will  find  them  involved  ia 
inexplicable  difficulties." 

Eug.  That  Abraham,  in  some  passages 
of  scripture,  is  considered  as  a  type  of  Christ, 
I  do  not  dispute*  And  so  are  Isaac,  and 
David, and  Solomon,  and  Isaiah,  and  others 
of  the  ancient  patriarchs  and  prophets.  But 
does  it  follow  from  this  that  Abraham,  or 
any  other  man,  possessed  no  other  than  a 
typical  character?  It  surely  does  not. — 
Give  Abraham  all  the  honour  that  results 
from  his  typical  character,  but  let  not  the 
type  absorb  the  man.  You  must  not  for- 
get that  he  sustains  the  character  of  a  pa- 
rent, the  head  of  a  family  ;  and  in  his  char- 
acter he  is  regarded  in  relation  to  his  na- 
tural posterity.  You  refer  to  Gen.  xviii. 
13.  and  ask,  whether  the  promise  there  made 
is  not  ifl  Christ,  and  Abraham  a  type  of  Christ? 
I  answer,  the  promise  is  indeed  made  in 
reference  to  Christ  as  the  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, but  there  is  no  evidence  that  Abra- 
ham is  there  considered  as  a  type.  You 
will  observe,  that  this  passage  is  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  original  and  fundamental  prom- 


35 

ise  of  the  covenant,  (Vid.  Gen.  xii,  3.)  and 
is  quoted  by  the  apostle,  in  his  epistle  to 
the  Gala  trans,  as  an  evidence  that  the  gos- 
pel was  preached  to  Abraham,  and  that  he 
was  justified  by  faith.  That  is,  according 
to  your  construction,  God  made  Abraham 
a  type  of  Christ,  and  then  preached  the  gos- 
pel to  him  ;  or,  preached  the  gospel  to  him 
by  making  him  a  type  of  Christ.  Now,  ac- 
cording to  this  interpretation,  can  you  tell 
me  whether  Abraham  was  justified  for  be- 
lieving that  he  was  a  type  of  Christ,  or,  in 
the  promised  Saviour  .'  i.  e.  for  believing 
in  himself,  or  in  Christ?  Is  this  one  of  those 
"  inexplicable  difficulties"  which  your  type 
is  calculated  to  avoid,  or  does  it  lead  di- 
rectly into  it? — You  ask,  whether  all  who 
have  ever  shared  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
have  been  in  Abraham  naturally,  &c  ?  I 
answer,  No  ;  but  by  faith  in  Christy  (not  in 
your  type  of  Christ,)  they  have  become 
partakers  of  the  covenant  which  God  made 
with  the  holy  patriarch,  and  are  therefore 
called  by  the  apostle  "  children  of  Abra- 
ham" and  "  heirs  of  the  promise :''  And  these 
epithets,  it  seems,  many  of  your  preach- 
ers are  unwilling  to  use,  lest  common 
people,  who  are  in  the  habit  of  giving  a 
common-sense  interpretation  to  scripture, 
should  never  imagine  that  Abraham  was  a 
mere  shadow.  I  do  not  wonder  at  their 
caution. 

What  has  been  said,  might  be  deemed  suf- 
ficient to  shew, that  in  that  passage,direct  re- 


36 

ference  is  had  to  Christ;  but  to  preclude  all 
doubt  on  the  subject,  and  to  shew  you  that  this 
is  not  the  mere  result  of  "  inferential  proof," 
permit  me  to  refer  you  to  a  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord"  on  this  point.  The  Lord  afterwards 
repeated  this  promise  to  Abraham,  and  also 
to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  in  these  words,  "And 
in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  families  (or  nations) 
of  the  earth  be  blessed."  Vid.  Gen.  xxii.  18. 
xxvi.  4,  xxviii.  14.  This  is  the  same  identi- 
cal promise,  only  expressed  in  more  expli- 
cit terms.  And  that  it  meant  precisely  the 
same  when  originally  delivered  to  Abra- 
ham, is  evident  from  the  apostle's  reasoning 
in  the  3d  of  Galatians.  That  he  therein 
refers  to  the  original  covenant,  and  not  to 
the  subsequent  explanations  of  it,  I  have 
already  shewn  you,  by  the  precise  corres- 
pondence of  the  four  hundred  and  thirty 
years.  From  the  first  institution  of  the  cov- 
enant, it  is  evident,  that  there  are  two  seeds 
distinctly  recognised  therein.  The  one  may 
be  called  "the  promised  seed,"  which  is 
Christ;  and  the  other  "the  seed  of  the  pro- 
mise," which  is  Abraham's  natural  posteri- 
ty, together  with  those  who  should  be  in- 
corporated with  them  by  professing  their  re- 
ligion. The  former,  is  all  along  held  up  as 
the  object  of  faith  ;  the  latter,  as  the  heirs  of 
the  promise  through  faith.  And  every  at- 
tempt to  destroy  this  distinction,  by  identi- 
fying the  one  with  Abraham,  as  a  type  of 
Christ,  however  desirable  it  may  be  for  the 
maintenance  of  your  system,  is  evidently 


37 

"  darkening    counsel    by    words    without 
knowledge." 

But  I  have  not  done  with  this  idea.  As 
your  denomination  are  so  fond  of  reducing 
every  thing  under  the  former  dispensation 
to  types  and  shadows,  when  you  have  made 
Abraham  a  Christ,  why  have  you  never  at- 
tempted to  shew  that  the  Jews  were  requi- 
red to  exercise  faith  in  Abraham.  This  ty- 
pical faith  would  not  only  have  happily  cor- 
responded with  Abraham's  typical  character, 
but  would  have  been  vastly  convenient  to 
prefigure  the  faith  of  the  Christian  church  ; 
and  I  doubt  not  many  of  your  denomination 
will  "fellowship"  this  suggestion  rather  than 
give  up  Abraham's  typical  character,  which, 
it  seems,  helps  them  out  of  so  many  other- 
wise "inexplicable  difficulties;"  but,  for  my 
part,  I  am  not  terrified  at  those  difficulties 
which  shadows  can  remove. 

Before  I  conclude  my  remarks  on  this 
point,  I  wish  you  to  take  one  more  view  of 
the  passage  you  have  referred  to,  in  its  con- 
nexion.— It  is  in  Genesis  xviii,  in  immediate 
connexion  with  the  meditated  destruction  of 
Sodom.  "And  the  Lord  said,  shall  I  hide 
from  Abraham  that  thing  which  I  do;  see- 
ing that  Abraham  shall  surely  become  a 
great  and  mighty  nation,  and  all  the  nations 
^)f  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him  1  For  I 
know  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
his  household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep 
the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judg- 
ment, that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham 
4 


38 

that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him"  Now,  se- 
riously, this  would  have  been  one  of  the  last 
passages  I  should  have  thought  of  referring 
to,  as  an  evidence  that  Abraham  was  ever 
considered  a  type  of  Christ.  Here,  as  in 
every  other  case,  where  the  covenant  is  in- 
troduced, the  two  distinct  seeds  are  explicit- 
ly brought  to  view,  and  that  by  way  of  al- 
lusion to  the  original  compact  which  God 
had  made  with  him.  And,  what  is  very  re- 
markable, he  states  precisely  the  ground 
on  which  the  benefits  of  that  covenant  are 
to  descend  from  generation  to  generation. 
"  For  I  know  that  he  will  command  his  chil- 
dren and  his  household  after  him,  and  they 
shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice 
and  judgment:  that  the  Lord  may  bring  up- 
on Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken 
of  him."  So  far  from  being  regarded  as 
a  type,  he  is  expressly  recognised  as  the  fa- 
ther or  head  of  a  family  and  household,  in 
which  relation  he  must  be  faithful,  in  order 
to  transmit  the  blessing  to  his  posterity. — 
But  I  shall  have  occasion  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  this  passage  in  another  place.  I, 
therefore,  forbear  any  further  comment  up- 
on it  here.  Permit  me,  therefore,  to  recall 
your  attention  to  the  point  at  issue.  And, 
by  this  time,  I  think  your  candour  must  con- 
strain you  to  admit,  that  the  covenant  which 
St.  Paul  declares  was  not  annulled  by  the 
ceremonial  law,  is  the  original  covenant 
made  with  Abraham.  With  this,  and  with 
no  other,  the  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 


39 

correspond.  Hence  infant  membership, 
which  was  instituted  four  hundred  and  thir- 
ty years  before  the  law  was  ordained,  cer- 
tainly cannot  be  affected  by  the  repeal  of 
that  law.  Your  objection,  therefore,  that 
we  might  as  well  "pa}7  tythes,  keep  the  pass- 
over,  offer  sacrifice,  &c."  is  entirely  without 
foundation. 

Leb.  I  acknowledge  T  never  considered 
the  subject  in  (his  light  before.  I  was  al- 
ways in  the  habit  of  considering  infant  mem- 
bership as  standing  on  the  same  foundation 
with  tythes,  annual  sacrifices,  &c.  I  have 
heard  it  asserted  so  frequently,  I  verily 
thought  it  was  the  case.  But,  as  the  force 
of  this  argument  will  depend,  in  a  consider- 
able degree,  on  the  proof  you  adduce  in 
favour  of  the  sameness  of  the  ancient  and 
Christian  church,  I  will  now  attend  to  your 
reasoning  on  that  subject. 


SECTION  II. 

Eugenius.  THE  first  argument  which  I 
adduced  in  support  of  that  sentiment,  was 
drawn  from  the  sameness  of  the  covenant, 
which  the  Lord  made  with  Abraham  and  his 
seed,  and  that  upon  which  the  Christian 
church  is  founded.  "I  will  make  of  thee  a 
great  nation,  and  I  will  bless  thee,  and  make 
thy  name  great;  and  thou  shalt  be  a  bles- 
sing.   And  I  will  bless  them  that  bless  thee, 


40 

and  curse  him  that  curseth  thee." — Gen.  xii. 
2,  3.  Of  this  covenant,  circumcision,  as  I 
have  already  shewn,  was  in  due  time  ap- 
pointed the  seal. 

Leb>  But  some  of  our  most  able  preach- 
ers and  writers  have  shewn,  that  this,  in- 
stead of  being  the  covenant  of  grace,  was 
"  a  national  compact, '*  having  respect  to  the 
possession  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  other 
temporal  blessings;  and  "circumcision  was 
nothing  more  than  a  token  or  badge  of  na- 
tional descent,"  by  which  the  posterity  of 
Abraham  should  be  kept  pure  from  all  oth- 
er nations,  until  the  promised  Messiah  was 
born. 

Eug.  If  this  has  ever  been  proved,  I  am 
ignorant  of  the  fact.  I  know  it  has  been 
roundly  asserted  by  many,  and  with  such 
imposing  effrontery  too,  that  your  people 
have  been  constrained  to  adopt  the  opinion; 
for  they  could  not  suppose  that  good  men, 
(as  they  suppose  their  teachers  to  be)  would 
make  such  positive  assertions,  without  full 
evidence  of  their  correctness.  It  is  not  ge- 
nerally considered,  that  great  confidence  in 
asserting  an  opinion,  is  no  evidence  of  its 
correctness.  Common  people,  who  are  not 
in  the  habit  of  reasoning,  are  more  frequent- 
ly carried  away  with  bold  assertions  than 
with  the  soundest  arguments.  It  is  this  that 
has  given  some  of  your  preachers  so  much 
supposed  advantage  in  this  controversy.  But 
I  assure  you,  I  consider  it  no  difficult  task 
to  shew  that  these  assertions  have  been  made, 


41 

not  only  without  a  single  sound  argument  to 
support  them,  but  also  in  direct  opposition 
to  plain  logical  deduction,  to  scripture  de- 
claration, and  to  matter  of  fact*  When  the 
Lord  renewed  this  covenant  with  Abraham, 
just  before  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and  appointed 
the  seal,  he  fully  explained  what  he  meant 
by  blessing  him  and  his  seed.  "And  I  will 
establish  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee,  in  their  generations, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a  God  to 

THEE,    AND  TO  THY  SEED  AFTER  THEE." Gen. 

xvii.  7. 

Leo,  But  this  means  nothing  more  than 
that  he  would  be  "their  King  and  temporal 
governor,"  and  have  that  nation  under  his 
peculiar  protection. 

Eug.  This  may  "pass  for  currency"  with 
Baptists,  (the  famous  advocates,  in  theory T 
of  explicit  warrant,)  but  it  will  not  be  re- 
ceived as  such  by  Peedobaptists,  who  found 
their  faith  on  argument,  and  not  on  asser- 
tion. The  sentiment  which  you  have  ad- 
vanced, has  often  been  roundly  asserted,  and 
that  not  only  without  an  argument  to  sup- 
port it,  but  in  direct  opposition  to  the  dic- 
tates of  common  sense  and  the  whole  cur- 
rent of  scripture.  "  I  will  be  your  God,  and 
ye  shall  be  my  people."  No  greater  bles- 
sing can  creatures  desire.  No  greater  bles- 
sing can  God  bestow.  It  is  the  same  which 
is  applied  lo  believers,  John  xx.  17.  Heb.  xi„ 
16,  and  to  the  Christian  church,  2  Cor.  vi.  16. 
yea,  even  as  comprehending  all  the  blessings 
4* 


42 

to  be  enjoyed  in  her  millennial  glory  or  tri- 
umphant state.  "  And  God  himself  shall  be 
with  them,  and  be  their  God.'' — Rev.  xxi.  3. 
Where,  then,  I  demand,  is  the  evidence  that 
it  implies  less  in  one  case  than  in  the  other. 
What  arrogance,  not  to  say  impiety,  do  those 
display,  who  assert  that  there  is  an  infinite 
difference  in  the  meaning  of  the  same  words 
in  the  two  cases! — But  that  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  was  as  comprehensive  as  I  have  re- 
presented, and  that  it  is  the  foundation  of  the 
Christian  church,  is  most  explicitly  declared 
in  the  6th  chap,  to  the  Hebrews.  The  apos- 
tle, there,  introduces  the  promise  of  the  ori- 
ginal covenant,  "  Surely,  blessing  I  will  bless 
thee,  and  multiplying,  1  will  multiply  thee." — - 
This,  he  declares,  "  God  confirmed  by  an 
oath  to  Abraham,"  who,  "after  he  had  pa- 
tiently endured,  obtained  the  promise." — 
But  he  never  inherited  the  land  of  Canaan, 
"no,  not  so  much  as  to  set  his  foot  on:"  he 
was  only  a  sojourner  there.  Consequently, 
the  blessing  which  God  had  promised,  and 
which  he  "obtained,"  after  "  patiently  en- 
during," must  allude  to  something  else.  To 
set  this  matter  entirely  at  rest,  the  apostle 
adds,  "  Wherein  God,  willing  more  abun- 
dantly to  shew  unto  the  heirs  of  promise  the 
immutability  of  his  counsel,  confirmed  it  by 
an  oath ;  that  by  two  immutable  things,  in 
which  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie,  WE 
wight  have  a  strong  consolation,  who  have 
Jled  for  refuge  to  lay  hold  upon  the  hope  set 
before  us :  which  hope  we  have  as  an  anchor 
ofthe  soul,  both  sure  and  stedfast,  and  which 


43 

entereth  into  that  within  the  veil ;  whither 
Jesus,  the  forerunner  is  for  us  entered,  &e." 
Now,  I  wish  to  know,  what  consolation  Chrfo- 
tians  can  derive  from  God's  promise  and  oath 
to  Abraham,  if  the  covenant  which  was  con- 
firmed thereby,  is  not  the  constitution  of  the 
Christian  church?  And  how  can  it  be  the 
foundation  of  the  Christian  hope,  which  is 
"an  anchor  of  the  soul,  sure  and  stedfast," 
if  that  covenant  had  respect  merely  to  the 
possession  of  Canaan,  and  other  temporal 
blessings?  The  supposition  is  absurd;  and 
the  fact  is  evident,  that  this  covenant  "com- 
prises all  the  blessings  and  privileges  ever 
promised  to  believers  and  the  church." 

Leb.  With  respect  to  that  sentiment,  sir, 
I  shall  only  say,  "to  those  that  can  believe 
this,  let  them  believe  it." 

Eug.  Weli  done,  Lebbeus!  you  have  a- 
dopted  a  very  convenient  method  to  dispose 
of  an  argument  which  you  cannot  contro- 
vert. I  have  shewn,  by  comparing  scripture 
with  scripture,  that  the  promise  of  Jehovah, 
to  an  individual  or  a  community,  "to  be 
their  God,"  contains  all  that  creatures  can 
desire,  or  God  himself  bestow.  And  I 
defy  you,  or  any  of  your  persuasion,  to 
prove  the  contrary.  Conscious  of  your  in- 
ability to  do  this,  and  yet  pressed  with  the 
argument,  you  endeavour  to  get  rid  of  it,  by 
exclaiming  "to  those  that  can  believe  this, 
let  them  believe  it."  This  expression  does, 
indeed,  contain  a  precious  privilege  to  Pa> 
do  baptists,  if  you  would  allow  them  to  exercise 


44 

it;  but  it  contains  no  argument  against  iheir 
sentiments,  and  really  betrays  the  weakness 
of  your  own  cause.  In  this  light  it  will  be 
viewed  by  every  intelligent  person.  This, 
however,  is  no  unusual  method,  among  your 
people,  to  dispose  of  arguments  which  they 
know  not  how  to  answer.  T  have  often  ob- 
served, that  they  will  exclaim,  as  you  have 
done,  or  cry  out,  "O,  absurdity  I"  or  pretend 
to  write  "  Tekel"  on  an  argument,  when,  at 
the  very  moment,  they  are  so  oppressed  with 
its  weight,  that  they  know  not  how  to  relieve 
themselves.  No  man  will  adopt  such  an  in- 
glorious method  of  defence,  unless  he  is  con- 
vinced, that  he  has  no  more  honourable 
way.  But  I  seriously  apprehend,  Lebbeus, 
that  your  professed  candour  must  have  de- 
serted you  just  at  this  juncture. 

I  now  proceed  to  another  of  your  posi- 
tions. You  say,  that  "circumcision  is  a 
mere  badge  of  national  descent.'5  This 
stands  on  the  same  foundation  with  your 
other  remark.  It  is  assertion  in  direct  op- 
position to  the  divine  testimony,  and  to  mat- 
ter of  fact.  Abraham's  servants  received 
that  seal  as  well  as  his  natural  seed;  Ish- 
mael  as  well  as  Isaac ;  Esau  as  well  as  Jacob. 
And  the  descendants  of  those  men  who  were 
excluded  from  the  promise,  have  retained 
the  same  rite,  even  to  the  present  day. 
Moreover,  the  apostle  declares,  that  "they 
are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel ;  nei- 
ther because  they  are  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, are  they  all  children ;  but  in  Isaac  shall 


45 

thy  seed  be  called  ;  that  is,  they  which  are 
the  children  of  the  flesh,  they  are  not  the 
children  of  God;  but  the  children  of  the 
promise  are  counted  for  the  seed.''' — Rom.  ix. 
6 — 8.  If  the  covenant  of  Abraham  was  a 
mere  national  covenant,  and  had  respect 
solely  to  temporal  blessings,  there  is  not  a 
word  of  truth  in  this  declaration;  for  on- that 
ground  they  are  all  Israel  that  are  of  Israel, 
and  the  children  of  the  flesh,  whether  be- 
lievers or  unbelievers,  did  inherit  the  pro- 
mise. Moreover,  the  apostle  declares,  that 
all  believers,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  are 
the  "children  of  Abraham,  and  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  promise.''  This  is  impossible,  if 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  were  a  mere  na- 
tional compact,  and  the  promise  had  respect 
only  to  the  land  of  Canaan. 

There  is  no  way  to  evade  this  consequence. 
You  must  either  admit,  that  St.  Paul,  wri- 
ting under  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
was  mistaken;  or  else  that  the  promise  to 
Abraham  and  his  seed  imported  something 
more  than  temporal  blessings.  But,  if  lie 
were  mistaken  in  this  case,  he  feU  into  the 
same  error  frequently.  For  again  he  de- 
clares, "  He  is  not  a  Jew  which  is  one  out- 
wardly, neither  is  that  circumcision  which 
is  outward  in  the  flesh;  but  lie  is  a  Jew  which 
is  one  inwardly,  and  circumcision  is  that  of 
the  heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in  the  letter, 
whose  praise  is  not  of  men,  but  of  God." — 
Rom.  ii.  28,29.  What  plainer  evidence  can 
be  desired,  that  circumcision  is  not  a  mere 


46 

badge  of  national  descent?  If  the  apostle 
had  beheld,  with  prophetic  eye,  the  cavils  of 
the  Baptists  on  this  subject,  he  could  not 
have  given  a  plainer  contradiction  to  their 
assertions.  But,  as  if  to  set  the  matter  at 
rest  for  ever,  he  declares,  in  another  part  of 
the  same  epistle,  in  the  most  explicit  terms, 
that  circumcision,  instead  of  being  a  mark 
of  national  descent,  is  a  badge  of  the  king- 
dom of  grace.  "  He  received  the  sign  of  cir- 
cumcision, a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith,  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumci- 
sed. — For  the  promise  that  he  should  be  the 
heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham,  or 
to  his  seed,  through  the  law,  but  through  the 
righteousness  of  faith." — Rom.  iv.  11,  13. — 
He,  who,  in  spite  of  these  plain  declarations, 
can  believe  that  circumcision  was  a  badge 
of  national  descent,  can  persuade  himself  to 
believe  any  thing  that  suits  his  purpose. 

Leo*  Although  these  passages  seem  to 
favour  your  scheme  in  one  point  of  view, 
yet  it  appears  to  me,  in  another  they  mili- 
tate against  you. 

Eug.  How  so,  pray? 

Leb.  Why,  if  the  children  of  the  flesh  are 
not  the  children  of  God — if  he  is  not  a  Jew 
which  is  one  outwardly;  and  if  the  promise 
were  not  made  to  Abraham  or  his  seed 
through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith,  then  it  cannot  be  the  covenant 
of  grace  which  was  made  with  Abraham  and 
his  seed;  for  all  his  posterity  were  embra- 
ced in  that  covenant ;  it  was,  therefore,  na- 
tional. 


47 

Eug.  Our  Saviour  declares,  "  Many  shall 
say  unto  me,  in  that  day,  Lord,  Lord,  have 
we  not  eaten  and  drunk  in  thy  presence, 
prophesied,  cast  out  dtvils,  and  done  many 
wonderful  works  in  thy  name,  to  whom  I 
will  profess,  I  never  knew  you."  And  the 
history  of  the  church,  and  our  own  observa- 
tion, teach  us,  that  in  every  age  there  are 
those  who  are  professedly  in  covenant  with 
God,  and  are  yet  destitute  of  true  religion. 
But  does  it  follow,  from  the  acknowledg- 
ment of  these  facts,  that  it  is  not  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  on  which  the  Christian  church 
is  founded?  No,  my  friend;  it  is  still  true 
with  respect  to  the  church,  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation,  that  "they  are  not  all  Is- 
rael that  are  of  Israel."  This,  instead  of 
disproving  God's  gracious  covenant,  only 
proves,  that  men  may  be  professedly  in  cove- 
nant with  God,  and  yet  be  strangers  to  the 
covenant  of  promise.  And  I  wish  you  to 
observe,  particularly,  that  this  objection, 
which  you  have  made,  was  anticipated  by 
the  apostle,  and  answered  precisely  on  the 
ground  that  I  have  stated.  "For,  what  if 
some  of  them  did  not  believe?  Shall  their 
unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  without  ef- 
fect? God  forbid:  yea,  let  God  be  true,  but 
every  man  a  liar." — Rom.  iii.  3, 4.  Here  he 
plainly  declares,  that  though  every  man 
were  a  liar,  or  hypocritical  professor,  yet 
God's  gracious  covenant  remains  the  same. 
And  though,  through  their  unbelief  and  hy- 
pocricy,  they  forfeited  the  blessing,  yet  this 


4B 

does  not  prove  that  they  were  not,  by  pro* 
fession,  in  covenant  with  God;  it  only  proves 
that  they  were  insincere  in  their  profession. 
That  the  Lord  did,  indeed,  require  ail  Abra- 
ham's natural  seed  to  enter  into  that  cove- 
nant, and  that  the  most  of  them  did  so  pro- 
fessedly, is  a  fact.  And  just  the  same  does 
the  Lord  require  now  of  all  to  whom  the 
gospel  comes.  And  many,  unquestionably, 
do  now  take  upon  them  that  covenant,  in 
the  promises  of  which  they  have  no  part 
nor  lot.  But  in  neither  case  does  this  prove 
that  the  Lord  requires  them  to  do  this  with 
an  unholy  heart,  nor  does  it  prove  that  it  is 
not  the  covenant  of  grace  into  which  they 
professedly  enter. — During  the  former  dis- 
pensation, the  true  knowledge  of  God  was 
confined  to  the  Jewish  nation,  and  the  visi- 
ble church  was  identified  with  that  common- 
wealth, but  this  is  no  evidence  that  the  co- 
venant of  God  with  them  was  a  mere  nation- 
al compact,  having  respect  only  to  tempo- 
ral blessings. 

Leb.  But  "  they  were  born  into  that  cove- 
nant." 

Eug.  They  were  born  into  that  covenant 
in  the  same  sense  in  which  the  children  of 
believers  are  born  into  the  covenant  now. 
But  neither  then,  nor  now,  does  that  circum- 
stance give  them  a  personal  title  to  the  bles- 
sings of  the  covenant,  without  inherent  holi- 
ness ;  as  I  shall  have  occasion  to  shew  in  its 
proper  place. 

Leb.  But  unbelievers,  as  well  as  believers, 
did  enjoy  the  promised  land. 


49 

Evg.  They  enjoyed  it,  just  as  wicked 
men  now  enjoy  the  mercies  of  life,  not  by 
virtue  of  the  covenant,  but  of  the  sovereign 
goodness  of  God.  The  tares  and  the  wheat 
grew  together :  and  for  the  sake  of  his  real 
children,  the  Lord  permitted  those  who  were 
not  really  holy  to  enjoy  temporal  blessings 
with  them.  But  he  never  promised  in  a 
covenant  way  to  bestow  even  temporal  fa- 
vours, on  any  of  his  creatures,  as  a  reward 
for  services  which  they  should  perform  with- 
out holiness  of  heart.  Your  system  is  foun- 
ded on  the  supposition  that  the  Lord  did 
promise  and  bestow  temporal  blessings  on 
the  Jews,  on  condition  of  their  performing 
certain  services  with  unsanctihed  hearts. 
But  this  is  a  palpable  error;  utterly  inconsis- 
tent with  the  divine  character:  for  it  is  no  less 
than  to  set  up  the  great  Jehovah  as  a  re- 
warder  of  iniquity.  An  instance  of  this 
cannot  be  adduced  in  all  the  acts  of  his  holy 
administration.  He  has  indeed  sometimes 
promised,  or  rather  revealed  his  purpose,  to 
bestow  temporal  blessings  on  the  wicked, 
but  he  never  entered  into  covenant  with 
them  and  promised  those  blessings  as  a  re- 
ward for  services  which  they  should  per- 
form with  unsanctified  hearts.  He  always 
does  this  as  an  act  of  his  holy  sovereignty. 
"  Ye  are  the  salt  of  the  earth"  said  Christ. 
It  is  on  account  of  the  church  that  the  world 
is  sustained.  It  is  on  her  account  that  he 
distributes  his  favours  "to  the  just  and  to 
the  unjust."  And  it  was  on  the  same  ac- 
count that  he  permittedthe  hypocritical  part 
5 


50 

of  the  Jewish  church  to  enjoy  temporal 
blessings  with  the  righteous. 

Leb.  But  is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  great  bo- 
dy of  the  Jewish  nation  were  frequently ',  not 
to  say  generally,  ungodly  and  wicked? 

Eug.  Suppose  this  were  true,  as  I  am 
sensible  your  people  are  fond  of  believing, 
it  does  not  alter  the  state  of  the  case.  It 
only  proves  that  under  that  dark  dispensa- 
tion unbelief  and  hypocrisy  were  more 
common  than  in  this  highly  favoured  age : 
that  then,  more  people  were  professedly  in 
covenant  with  God,  who  had  no  claim  to  the 
promise,  than  there  are  at  the  present  time. 
But  in  neither  case  does  their  hypocrisy  an- 
nul the  covenant.  In  a  depraved  world  like 
ours  we  can  never  determine  with  certainty 
what  the  laws  of  any  community,  whether 
civil  or  ecclesiastical,  are,  by  the  conduct  of 
its  members.  There  is  a  law  in  this  state 
that  forbids  Sabbath  breaking,  but,  if  we 
were  to  judge  by  the  conduct  of  a  great 
mass  of  our  population,  we  should  be  o- 
bliged  to  conclude  that  that  crime  was  not 
forbidden,  nor  punishable  by  the  laws. — 
Hence  it  is  manifest  that  we  are  to  look  at 
the  divine  requirements,  and  not  at  the  con- 
duct of  the  people,  in  order  to  determine 
what  was  requisite  to  a  standing  in  that 
church. 

But  I  am  not  disposed  to  admit  the  fact 
in  the  full  extent  you  have  stated.  Though 
there  were  many  and  great  defections  in  the 
ancient  church,  yet  there  is  no  reason  to 


51 

suppose  that  they  were  either  as  great  or 
general  as  your  people  would  fain  repre- 
sent. Jn  one  of  the  darkest  seasons  under 
that  dispensation,  even  when  a  cotemporary 
prophet  supposed  that  he  stood  alone  on  the 
Lord's  side,  the  Lord  declared,  "  /  have  left 
me,  seven  thousand  in  Israel  who  have  not  bow- 
ed the  knee  to  Baal"  1 . Kings  xix,  18.  Now, 
if  one  who  lived  at  the  time  could  be  so 
much  deceived  as  to  the  extent  of  that 
apostacy,  how  much  more  may  we  be 
deceived  in  this  remote  age.  Besides  this, 
in  forming  our  opinions  of  the  religious  state 
of  that  people,  we  are  apt  to  make  little  or 
no  allowance  for  the  different  habits  and 
manners  of  the  times.  On  this  account,  ma- 
ny things  in  their  conduct  appear  to  us  ut- 
terly inconsistent  with  a  state  of  grace,  of 
which  we  should  form  a  very  different  opin- 
ion if  the  manners  of  the  times  had  remain- 
ed unchanged.  There  probably  are  practi- 
ces among  professing  christians  in  the  pre- 
sent day,  which,  on  the  same  account,  will 
appear  to  succeeding  generations  as  strange 
and  inconsistent  with  a  gracious  state  as  ma- 
ny of  the  aberrations  of  the  Jews  do  to  us. 
It  is  my  candid  opinion,  warranted  I  think 
by  the  word  of  God  and  the  history  of  the 
church,  that  the  disproportion  between  real 
and  nominal  believers,  under  the  two  dis- 
pensations, is  not  so  great  as  is  generally  im- 
agined. And  in  suggesting  this  sentiment  I 
do  not  except  the  Baptist  church  ;  for  I  be- 
lieve, you  yourself  will  acknowledge,  that 


52 

professors  in  your  churches  are  not  in  gen- 
eral   more   circumspect  and   consistent  in 
their  walk  and  conversation  than  ours:  and 
that  apostacies,  especially  after  what   you 
call  a  revival,  are  quite  as  numerous  (not  to 
j-ay  more  so)  as  in  any  other  religious  com- 
munity.    The  declaration  of  our  Saviour 
that  many  of  those  who  cry   "  Lord,  Lord," 
will  be  rejected  of  him,  1  believe  has  been 
applicable  to  every  past  generation  as  well 
as  the  present.     Doubtless,  there  are  now, 
and  ever  have  been,  many  who  are  deceived 
with  "a  name  to  live  and  are  dead;"  who 
really  think  that  they  are  christians,  and 
are  esteemed  so  by  their  brethren,  to  whom 
Christ  will   say,  in  the  hour  of  judgment, 
"  I  never  knew  yon"     But  if  this  were  the 
character  of  ninety-nine  hundreths  of  the 
Christian  church,  or  if  it  could  be  made  to 
appear  that  this  was  the  state  of  that  propor- 
tion of  the  Jewish   church,   it  would   not 
prove  that  either  the  one  or  the  other  was 
not  professedly    built   on   the  covenant  of 
grace.     Hence  it  is  manifest  that  vour  ob- 
jection    against  the    Abrahamic  covenant, 
drawn  from  the  moral  character  of  the  Jew- 
ish   nation,  if  it  were  founded   in  fact,  has 
not  the  weight  of  a  straw.     It  may  answer 
your  preachers  as  a  subject  of  declamation, 
and  they  may  employ  it  to  the  advantage  of 
their  system  in  reviling  "the  people  of  God," 
but  in  the   balance  of  the  sanctuary  or  of 
sound  reason,  it  is  less  than  "  the  dust  of  th% 
balance." 


53 

But  I  wish  to  make  one  additional  re- 
mark onyourviewof  the  rite  of  circumcision. 
You  say  "  it  was  nothing  more  than  a  badge 
or  token  of  national  descent,  by  which  the 
posterity  of  Abraham  should  be  kept  pure 
from  other  nations  until  the  promised  Mes- 
siah was  born."  If  the  moral  character  of 
that  people  were  what  you  have  represented 
it  to  be,  then  Christ  might  as  well  have 
descended,  and  would  have  been  as  much 
honoured  by  descending, from  Edom,  Moab, 
or  any  of  the  nations  of  Canaan.  Moreo- 
ver, it  this  weie  its  object  it  entirely  failed  : 
for  Abraham's  posterity  were  not  kept  dis- 
tinct from  all  other  nations.  Wlien  the 
Lord  covenanted  with  the  patriarch,  he  di- 
rected him  to  apply  the  seal  of  the  covenant 
to  all  his  servants,  whether  born  in  his 
house,  or  bought  with  money,  as  well  as  to 
his  natural  posterity.  And  when  the  law 
was  given  to  Israel,  express  provision  was 
made  for  the  incorporation  of  strangers  with 
the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  whenever  they 
professed  obedience  to  Israel's  God.  This 
was  frequently  done  ;  and  even  in  the  gen- 
ealogy of  our  Lord  himself  we  find  the  name 
of  Ruth,  the  Moabitess,  who  wa^  providen- 
tially converted  to  the  Jewish  faith,  and  pro- 
fessed her  indissoluble  attachment  to  the 
true  God  and  his  chosen  people.  Vid.  Ruth 
i.  and  Mat.  i.  5. 

Leb.  But  sir,  there  are  many  other  objec- 
tionsagainst  the  sentimentthat  the  Abraham- 
ic  covenant  is  the  covenant  of  giace.  These 
5* 


M 

I  think  are  stated  in  a  very  forcible  manner 
by  Dr.  Gill ;  and  I  should  be  pleased  to  hear 
your  remarks  upon  them. 

Eug>  This  part  of  Dr.  Gill's  treatise  I 
have  read  repeatedly,  but  I  have  a  very  dif- 
ferent opinion  of  his  objections.  Instead  of 
being  forcible,  they  appear  to  me  to  be  \e- 
ry  feeble, and  in  many  instances  inconsistent 
not  only  with  themselves,  but  also  with  the 
word  of  God.  Here  is  the  book.  You 
will  please  to  select  such  as  have  the  most 
weight  in  your  own  mind. 

Leb.  With  your  leave,  I  shall  make  no 
selection,  but  take  them  in  order.  He  ob- 
serves, "1.  It  is  never  called  the  covenant 
of  grace,  nor  by  any  name  which  shews  it  to 
be  such,  but  the  covenant  of  circumcision. 
Now  nothing  is  more  opposite  to  one  anoth- 
er than  circumcision  and  grace/' 

Eug.  The  Apostle  declares  that  circum- 
cision was  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  ;"  and  that  "  that  is  not  circumcision 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh — but  circum- 
cision is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and 
not  in  the  letter."  Moreover,  the  Lord  com- 
manded the  Israelites  to  "circumcise  their 
hearts;"  and  hence  the  apostle  calls  the  ex- 
ternal rite  "  the  sign  of  circumcision,"  be- 
cause it  was  an  external  sign  of  internal 
grace.  Now,  let  common  sense  say  whether 
"  nothing  is  more  opposite  to  one  another  thaw 
circumcision  and  grace  T*  So  much  for  one 
part  of  Dr..  Gill's  first  assertion :  now  for 
the  other.     He  says  "  It  is  never  called  by 


any  name  which  shews  it  to  he  the  covenant 
of  grace."  But  does  not  the  Lord  repea- 
tedly call  it  his  "everlasting  covenant — 
that  endureth  for  ever,  and  to  a  thousand 
generations."  And  are  not  these  terms  ap- 
plied to  the  covenant  of  grace  ?  You  may 
indeed  take  the  ground  of  the  universalists, 
as  some  of  your  writers  have  done,  and  try 
to  prove  that  these  epithets  do  not  mean 
endless  duration ;  but  even  this  will  not 
help  your  cause.  If  the  terms  are  limited, 
they  are  limited  by  the  existence  of  the  ob- 
jects to  which  they  are  applied. 

Leb.  "  The  land  of  Canaan  was  given  to 
Abraham's  seed  for  an  everlasting  posses- 
sion: but  that  part  of  the  covenant  has  come 
to  an  end ;  and  one  of  these  everlastings  i& 
as  long  as  the  other." 

Eug.  You  will  pardon  me  if  I  deny  that 
that  part  of  the  covenant  is  come  to  an  end. 
It  is  true  that  the  Jews,  for  their  unbelief, 
have  been  cut  ofF  from  the  enjoyment  of 
Canaan  and  all  the  other  blessings  of  the 
covenant :  but  that  they  are  to  be  restored 
to  the  holy  land,  and  to  the  favour  of  God, 
is  so  plainly  declared  in  the  scriptures  that 
no  rational  man  can  doubt  it.  If  therefore 
the  word  everlasting  is  to  be  understood  in 
a  limited  sense  in  that  case,  it  is  limited,  as 
1  observed  before,  by  the  existence  of  the 
object  to  which  it  is  applied.  That  is,  they 
were  to  possess  the  land  of  Canaan  as  long 
as  it  existed,  on  condition  of  their  fidelity. 
And  on  the  same  condition,  this  covenant 


56 

with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  was  to  last  as 
long  as  they  existed,  or  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant  endured. 

Leb.  Dr.  Gill  observes  "  2.  It  appears  to 
be  a  covenant  of  works  and  not  of  grace 
since  it  was  to  be  kept  under  a  severe  pen- 
alty : — in  case  of  disobedience  or  neglect 
such  a  soul  was  to  be  cut  off  from  his  peo- 
ple: all  which  shews  it  to  be,  not  a  cove- 
nant of  grace  but  of  works." 

Eug.  Christians  are  required  to  keep  all 
the  ordinances  and  precepts  of  the  gospel, 
under  a  severe  penalty  ;  and  in  case  of  dis- 
obedience, they  are  to  be  cut  off  from  God's 
people.  Therefore,  according  to  Dr.  Gill's 
reasoning,  it  is  not  the  covenant  of  grace, 
but  of  works,  upon  which  the  Christian 
church  is  founded.  And  this  you  will  find 
is  the  result  of  his  scheme. 

Leb.  "  3*  It  is  plain  it  was  a  covenant  that 
might  be  broken  ;  of  the  uncircumcised  it 
is  said,  He  hath  broken  my  covenant;  whereas 
the  covenant  of  grace  cannot  be  broken." 

Evg.  The  covenant  of  the  Christian  church 
is  often  violated  by  its  members  ;  therefore, 
on  the  same  ground,  it  may  be  inferred  that 
the  Christian  church  is  not  built  on  the  co- 
venant of  grace.  It  is  evident,  to  the  most 
superficial  observer,  that  Dr.  Gill,  in  order 
to  give  some  plausibility  to  this  argument, 
makes  no  distinction  between  a  man's  real 
and  professed  character,  We  believe  in  the 
final  perseverance  of  the  saints  as  firmly  as 
the  baptists  do:    but  we  believe,  and  w* 


57 

know,  that  a  man  may  profess  to  be  in  the 
covenant  of  grace,  and  yet  be  a  hypocrite. 
When  such  a  person  neglects  his  duty,  or 
falls  into  open  sin,  he  is  said  to  break  cove- 
nant; that  is,  he  makes  shipwreck  of  his 
faith  or  profession  :  and  this  phraseology  is 
warranted  by  scripture.  1  Tim.  i,  19,  20. — 
He  professed  to  be  in  the  covenant  of  grace, 
but  he  never  was  embraced  within  its  holy 
bonds.  These  remarks  apply  equally  to  the 
former  and  present  dispensation.  And  hence, 
when  the  uncircumcised  is  said  to  have  bro- 
ken covenant,  it  meant  precisely  the  same 
as  now;  that  he  had  cast  off  his  profession, 
and,  therefore,  ought  no  longer  to  be  num- 
bered among  God's  people. 

Leb.  "  4.  It  is  certain  it  had  things  in  it  of 
a  civil  or  temporal  nature,  as  a  multiplica- 
tion of  Abraham's  natural  seed,  and  a  race 
of  kings  from  him :  a  promise  of  his  being 
the  father  of  many  nations,  and  a  posses- 
sion of  the  land  of  Canaan  by  his  seed  ; — 
things  that  can  have  no  place  in  the  pure 
covenant  of  grace,  and  have  nothing  to  do 
with  that,  any  more  than  the  change  of  his 
name  from  Abram  to  Abraham." 

Eug.  But  do  you  believe,  Lebbeus,  that 
"temporal  blessings  have  no  place  in  the  co- 
venant of  grace,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with 
ill','  Our  Saviour  promised  that  "those  who 
bad  forsaken  all  for  his  sake  and  the  gospel's" 
should  "recci ve  a  hundred  j old  in  this  life, 
houses  and  lands,  SCt"  therefore,  according 
to  Dr.  Gill,  forsaking  all  things  for  Christ 


58 

and  the  gospel,  has  nothing  to  do  with  grace. 
"Godliness,"  saiih  Paid,  "is profitable  unto 
all  things,  hating  promise  of  (he  life  that  noiv 
is,  and  of  that  which  is  to  come:"  there- 
fore godliness  is  not  grace,  and  has  nothing 
to  do  with  it. 

If  I  understand  the  scriptures,  the  cove- 
nant of  grace  is,  to  every  Christian,  the  grand 
charter  of  all  his  privileges,  both  for  time  and 
eternity.  Whatever  distinguishes  his  present 
condition  from  that  of  the  damned  in  hell 
is  of  grace,  and  is  secured  to  him  by  the  co- 
venant of  grace.  Precisely  the  same  was 
the  covenant  which  God  made  with  Abra- 
ham. Those  temporal  blessings  which  Dr. 
Gill  enumerates,  were  secured  by  that  co- 
venant; and,  beside  these,  the  Lord  promis- 
ed to  be  "  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed*'* 
Therefore,  the  declaration  that  temporal 
blessings  "  can  ha  ve  no  place  in  the  covenant 
of  grace,  and  have  nothing  to  do  with  it,"  is 
not  only  unfounded,  but  is  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  the  word  of  God. 

Leo.  "  5.  There  were  some  persons  inclu- 
ded in  it;  who  cannot  be  thought  to  belong 
to  the  covenant  of  grace,  as  IshmaeJ  and  a 
profane  Esau;  and  there  were  some  who 
were  left  out  of  it,  who,  nevertheless,  un- 
doubtedly were  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  as 
Shem,  Arphaxad,  Melchisedeck,  Lot,  and 
others :  wherefore  this  can  never  be  the  pure 
covenant  of  grace." 

Eug,  And  pray,  what  does  this  amount  to  ? 
Because  there  are  some  hypocrites  in  the 


59 

Christian  church,  and  some  real  Christians 
who,  for  want  of  an  opportunity,  or  from 
some  other  cause,  have  never  entered  into 
the  visible  church,  does  it  thence  follow  that 
the  Christian  church  is  not  founded  on  the 
covenant  of  grace  ?  This  is  indeed  the  re- 
sult of  Dr.  G ill's  argument.  But  when  a 
church  is  organized,  it  is  not  necessary  that 
every  real  Christian  in  the  neighborhood 
should  be  attached  to  it  in  order  to  make  it 
a  true  church.  And  if  one  or  more  hypo- 
crites should  happen  to  be  included,  that 
would  not  destroy  the  character  of  the 
church.  What  if  the  Lord,  when  he  first 
organized  his  church  on  the  basis  of  the  A- 
brahamic  covenant,  was  pleased  to  include 
in  it  a  persecuting  Ishmael,  and  afterwards 
a  profane  Esau;  and  what  if  Jesus  Christ, 
when  he  first  called  his  twelve  disciples,  was 
pleased  to  number  a  traitor,  a  devil,  among 
them  :  and  afterwards  under  the  ministry  of 
his  apostles,  to  admit  a  sorcerer  and  other 
hypocrites  into  his  church,  does  that  destroy 
the  covenant  of  grace  ? — surely  not.  Con- 
sequently, this  objection  has  no  force  against 
the  Abrahamic  covenant. 

Leo.  Dr.  Gill's  oth  objection,  you  have 
already  answered  in  our  preliminary  discus- 
sion ;  but  he  observes,  "  7.  the  covenant  of 
grace  is  made  with  Christ,  &c.  No  mere 
man  is  capable  of  covenanting  with  God, — 
the  covenant  of  grace  is  not  made  with  any 
single  man,  &c." 

Eug.  Here,  then,  you  have  what  I  told 


60 

you,  that  Dr.  Gill,  in  order  to  destroy  the 
grace  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant  excludes 
the  Christian  church  also  from  the  covenant 
of  grace.  He  confounds  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption, (which  subsists  between  the  per- 
sons of  the  Trinity,  in  relation  to  human  re- 
demption,) and  the  covenant  of  grace,  (which 
subsists  between  God  and  all  true  believers,) 
and  excludes  every  individual  of  the  human 
family  from  the  latter,  by  asserting  that  "  no 
mere  man  is  capable  of  covenanting  with 
God,  and  that  this  covenant  is  never  made 
with  any  man."  If  this  does  not  remove  the 
covenant  of  grace  from  the  Christian,  as 
well  as  the  Jewish  church,  and  every  other 
community  and  individual  of  our  race,  I 
know  not  what  does.  But  how  is  this  con- 
sistent with  the  salvation  of  man,  and  the 
declarations  of  scripture  ? 

LeL  Why  he  says  "  Whenever  we  read  of 
it  [the  covenant  of  grace]  as  made  with  a 
particular  person  or  persons,  it  is  always  to 
be  understood  of  the  manifestation  and  ap- 
plication of  it  and  its  blessings  and  promises 
to  them." 

Eug.  And  pray  what  does  this  differ  from 
the  common  understanding  of  Christians  on 
this  subject?  I  am  perfectly  willing  to  adopt 
those  terms,  if  Dr.  Gill  prefers  them,  but 
that  does  not  destroy  the  grace  of  the  A- 
brahamic  covenant.  I  have  shewn  that  the 
same  "  blessings  and  promises''  were  "mani- 
fested" and  "  applied"  to  Abraham  and  his 
«eed  that  are  "  manifested"  and  "  applied" 


61 

to  the  Christian  church.  Where  then,  on 
Dr.  Gill's  own  ground,  is  there  any  differ- 
ence in  the  foundation  or  constitution  of"  the 
two  churches?  I  am  ready  to  believe  that 
the  Dr.  himself  began  to  perceive  that  there 
was  no  difference,  and  that,  after  all  his  rea- 
soning, he  had  brought  himself  back  to  the 
very  point  from  which  he  had  started  ;  for, 
if  I  recollect  right,  he  sets  out  upon  a  dif- 
ferent plan  under  his  next  argument,  and  tra- 
vels over  the  same  ground  again. 

Leb.  He  observes,  "  8.  Allowing  Abra- 
ham's covenant  to  be  a  peculiar  one,  and  of 
a  mixed  kind,  containing  promises  of  tem- 
poral things  to  him  and  his  natural  seed,  and 
of  spiritual  things  to  his  spiritual  seed,  or 
rather  that  there  was  at  the  same  time  when 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  was  given  to 
Abraham  and  his  natural  seed,  a  fresh  man- 
ifestation of  the  covenant  of  grace  made 
with  him  and  his  spiritual  seed  in  Christ — " 

Eug.  Yes,  that  is  wThat  I  expected.  Just 
now  the  Abrahamic  covenant  was  a  mere  na- 
tional compact,  having  "  nothing  to  do  wilh 
grace;"  but  now  it  has  become  "a  mixed 
kind,"  containing  both  temporal  and  spiri- 
tual blessings;"  and  there  was  in  it  a  fresh 
manifestation  of  the  covenant  of  grace."  This 
is  quite  a  change  of  ground. 

Leb.  "  That  the  temporal  blessings  of  it 
belonged  to  his  natural  seed,  is  no  question." 

Eug.  Hold,  that  is  a  question,  and  a  ve- 
ry serious  question  too. —  But  go  on. 

Leb.  "  If  the  covenant  of  grace  was  made 
6 


62 

with  all  Abraham's  seed,  according  1o  Ihe 
flesh,  then  it  was  made  with  his  more  imme- 
diate offspring — with  a  mocking,  persecu- 
ting Ishmael,  and  with  a  profane  Esau,  and 
with  all  his  remote  posterity  ;  with  them  who 
believed  not,  whose  carcases  fell  in  the  wil- 
derness; with  t  lie  ten  tribes  who  revolted  from 
the  pure  worship  of  God ;  with  the  Jews  in 
Isaiah's  time,  &c.  with  the  scribes  and  pha- 
risees,  and  that  wicked  and  adulterous  gene- 
ration in  the  times  of  Christ:  but  what  se- 
rious, thoughtful  man,  who  knows  any  thing 
of  the  covenant  of  grace,  can  admit  of  this?'* 
Evg.  If  "the  temporal  blessings  of  the 
covenant  belonged  to  Abraham's  natural 
seed,"  I  wish  to  know  whv  Ishmael  did  not 
enjoy  the  inheritance  as  well  as  Isaac?  Why 
was  Esau  excluded  from  the  possession  of 
Canaan  ?  Why  were  the  ten  tribes  after  their 
revolt,  driven  out  of  the  land?  Why  are  the 
Jews  now  scattered  to  the  four  winds  of  hea- 
ven ?  If  the  Lord  promised  the  possession  of 
Canaan  and  other  temporal  blessings  to  A- 
braham's  natural  seed,  without  regard  to  spi- 
ritual qualifications,  why  has  he  dene  thus? 
Has  God  broken  his  covenant  ?  He  certain- 
ly has,  if  the  "  temporal  blessings  belonged 
to  his  natural  seed,"  and  nothing  more  were 
necessary  to  entitle  a  man  to  those  blessings, 
than  to  be  born  of  the  seed  of  Abraham  and 
receive  the  rite  of  circumcision.  The  Jews 
have  to  this  day  preserved  themselves  un- 
mixed with  other  nations,  and  have  maintain- 
ed the  rite  of  ciicumcision ;  and  yet  they  are 


63 

not  enjoying  the  temporal,  any  more  than  the 
spiritual  blessings  of  the  covenant. 

Now  although  in  Dr.  Gill's  opinion  I  should 
forfeit  my  title  to  the  character  of  a  "  seri- 
ous, thoughtful  man,"  and  incur  the  charge 
of  not  "knowing  any  thing  of  the  covenant 
of  grace,"  I  will  venture  to  assert,  that  all 
the  wicked  Israelites  and  Jews  which  he  men- 
tions, even  the  adulterous  generation  which 
crucified  our  Lord,  were  once  professedly  in 
the  covenant  of  grace,  just  as  hypocrites  in 
every  age  of  the  Christian  church  have  pro- 
fessed to  be  in  that  covenant.  And  it  was 
for  their  unbelief  and  hypocrisy,  that  the 
Lord  cut  them  off  from  both  the  temporal 
and  spiritual  blessings  of  the  covenant  :  and 
this  is  the  true  reason  why  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan is  possessed  by  strangers,  and  the  seed 
of  Abraham  are  given  up  to  blindness. 

As  to  Dr.  G ill's  91  h  observation,  it  is  a 
mere  repetition  of  what  has  been  already  an- 
swered. But  his  10th  remark  I  will  not  pass 
over  in  silence.  He  observes,  "  notwithstand- 
ing all  this  pother  made  about  Abraham's  co- 
venant, it  was  not  made  with  him  and  his  in- 
fant seed,  but  with  him  and  his  adult  offspring. 
— It  was  not  made  with  Abraham's  infant 
seed,  who  could  not  circumcise  themselves, 
but  their  parents  were  by  this  covenant  obli- 
ged to  circumcise  them,  &c."  This  indeed 
is  a  noble  discovery,  and  if  it  really  carried  a- 
ny  force  in  it,  why  did  not  Dr.  Gill  make  it 
his  first  instead  of  his  last  argument  ?  It 
would  have  saved  him  all  the  "pother"  of 


64 

nine  particulars.  But  the  fact  is,  it  has  no 
sort  of  bearing  on  the  question.  No  person 
supposes  that  the  Jewish  children  when 
brought  for  circumcision,  or  the  children  of 
believers  when  presented  for  baptism,  are 
themselves  contracting  parties.  Their  pa- 
rents alone  are  agents  in  this  transaction; 
but  in  both  cases  the  infant  seed  are  the  sub- 
jects of  the  transaction,  and  heirs  of  the  pro- 
mise. If  the  Lord  had  commanded  Abra- 
ham not  to  circumcise  his  offspring  till  they 
arrived  at  adult  years,  then  Dr.  Gill  might 
with  great  propriety  have  exclaimed  against 
"all  this  pother."  But  when  the  fact  is,  that 
the  "  token  of  the  covenant" — "  the  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  his  faith"  was  applied  to 
his  infant  seed  eight  days  old,  it  shews  incon- 
testibly  that  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
were  "  manifested"  in  behalf  of  infants  as 
well  as  adults.  Here  then  is  the  "  sum  to- 
tal" of  Dr.  Gill's  arguments  against  the  A- 
brahamic  covenant.  It  stands  precisely  where 
it  did  before  ;  his  ten  objections  to  the  contra- 
ry notwithstanding. 

Lcb.  But  the  "  Jewish  infants  were  not  ad- 
mitted into  covenant  by  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision" for  "  they  were  in  covenant  from 
their  birth" — from  whence  it  cannot  be  plea- 
ded that  the  infants  of  believers  are  admitted 
into  it  by  baptism." 

Kug.  I  do  not  pretend  that  the  infants  of 
belie veis  are  admitted  into  the  covenant  by 
baptism.  I  know  that  this  ordinance  is  fre- 
quently called  the  initiating  ordinance  :  but 


65 

this  T  humbly  conceive  is  an  unhappy  ex- 
pression, and  Calculated  to  convey  very  in- 
correct ideas  of  the  subject.  It  is  indeed  the 
ordinance  by  which  membership  is  recogni- 
sed ;  but  a  person  must  become  a  member 
of  any  society,  before  he  can  receive  the 
badge  or  mark  of  membership.  You  mirk 
your  sheep,  not  to  make  them  yours,  but  to 
let  the  world  know  that  they  are  yours.  It 
is  a  previous  contract,  or  the  circumstarce 
of  their  being  brought  forth  of  your  flock 
that  makes  them  yours.  In  like  m --inner  it 
is  the  act  of  covenanting,  or  being  born  with- 
in the  pale  of  the  covenant,  that  constitutes 
membership  in  the  fold  of  Christ.  Hence, 
the  moment  a  person  enters  into  covenant 
with  God,  that  moment  he  becomes  a  mem- 
ber of  the  church  and  is  to  receive  the  token 
or  mark  of  membership.  In  the  same  in- 
stant that  his  membership  is  constituted,  his 
children,  in  consequence  of  their  relation  to 
him,  are  connected  with  the  church  ;  and  in 
token  of  that,  connexion  are  to  receive  the 
seal  of  the  covenant.  And  whenever  a  child 
is  born  to  a  believing  parent,  the  moment  it 
becomes  a  member  of  his  family  it  becomes 
connected  with  the  church,  and  is  to  be  re- 
cognised as  such,  as  soon  as  it  may  be  done, 
by  receiving  the  appropriate  seal  or  token  of 
the  covenant. 

And  this  is  precisely  the  light   in  which 
circumcision  wag  regarded  under  the  former 
dispensation.     The   Lord  declares  concern- 
ing the  uncircumcised  child  "  he  shall  be  cut 
6* 


66 

off  from  his  people,  he  hath  broken  my  cov- 
enant." How  could  he  be  cut  off  from  his 
people,  if  he  had  never  belonged  to  them  7 
And  how  could  he  be  called  a  covenant 
breaker,  if  he  had  never  been  embraced  by 
the  covenant  ?  Some  have  supposed  that  the 
pronoun  he  refers  to  the  parent,  but  this  is  a 
forced  construction  :  there  is  no  parent  pre- 
viously mentioned  to  which  it  can  refer.* 

In  the  view  which  has  been  taken  of  this 
subject  you  may  learn  how  to  appreciate  Dr. 
Gill's  assertion  that  "  Circumcision  was  no 
seal  of  the  covenant  of  grace  under  the  for- 
mer dispensation,  nor  is  baptism  a  seal  of  it 
under  the  present,"  and  that  circumcision  "  is 
called  a  sign  or  token,  but  not  a  seal,  Sfc" 
When  such  assertions  are  made  not  only  with- 
out evidence,  but  in  direct  opposition  to 
scripture  declaration,  I  doubt  not  that  all 
who  have  respect  for  divine  authority  will 
believe  God  rather  than  man. 


*  Some  have  contended  that  infants  cannot  be  said  to  be  "  in 
covenant,"  because  a  covenant  is  a  mutual  agreement  between 
parties  ;  and  as  infants  are  incapable  of*  making-  such  an  agree- 
ment, therefore  **  God's  act  cannot  bring  them  into  covenant," 
or  cause  them  "  to  belong  to  the  visible  church."  But  the  term 
covenant  is  used  in  the  scriptures  not  only  for  an  agreement  be- 
tween parties,  but  for  a  divine  constitution.  In  this  sense,  I  can 
conceive  of  no  difficulty  or  impropriety  in  saying  that  "  infants 
are  in  covenant."  It  was  by  a  divine  constitution  which  suspend- 
ed the  moral  character  of  their  posterity,  on  the  obedience  or 
disobedience  of  our  first  parents,  that  all  men  are  sinners.  And 
it  is  by  a  divine  constitution,  connected  with  the  covenant  of 
grace,  that  the  children  of  believers,  are  to  become  interested  in 
the  privileges  of  that  covenant  It  is  in  this  sense  that  I  use  the 
word  when  I  speak  of  children  as  being-  "  in  covenant"  or  "  be- 
longing to  ihe  church."  They  are  connected  with  the  church, 
wot  by  any  act  of  their  own,  but  by  virtue  of  their  relation  to 
their  parents. 


67 

Lcb.  O  Sir!  we  admit  that  it  was  the 
covenant  of  grace  which  the  Lord  manifest- 
ed to  Abraham,  and  that  circumcision  was 
to  him  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith, 
but  not  to  his  seed.  "  For  he  was  the  only 
believer  in  his  family.  God  commanded  that 
all  his  males  at  eight  days  old.  should  be  cir- 
cumcised ;  but  what  could  it  seal  to  them  ? 
or  what  does  baptism  seal  to  an  infant? — 
Surely  nothing  but  a  blank." 

Eug.  Pray  tell  me  by  what  authority  you 
assert  that  circumcision  was  a  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  when  applied  to  A- 
braliam,  and  yet  that  it  had  no  such  mean- 
ing when  applied  to  his  seed  ?  The  bible 
makes  no  such  distinction.  You  say  "  he  was 
the  only  believer  in  his  family."  This  is  an 
important  confession  on  your  part.  He 
was  the  only  believer,  and  yet  on  account  of 
his  faith,  "the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
his  faith"  was  applied  to  his  whole  house- 
hold. This  is  precisely  the  ground  on  which 
we  rest  the  point.  But  you  ask  "  What  could 
it  seal  to  children  eight  days  old  ?"  and  with- 
out waiting  for  an  answer,  you  reply  "  sure- 
ly nothing  but  a  blank."  Permit  me  to  sug- 
gest, that  it  becomes  short-sighted  creatureSj 
like  you  and  me,  when  speaking  of  the  po- 
sitive institutions  of  Heaven,  to  express 
themselves  with  more  deliberation,  circum- 
spection and  humility.  Though  we  may  be 
unable  at  first  view  fully  to  comprehend  the 
meaning  of  a  divine  rite,  or  U>  reconcile  it 
with  our  pre-conceived  opinions,  yet  it  does 


63 

not  follow  from  ibis,  that  that  rife  is  a  nuli- 
ty.  By  your  hasty  decision  you  not  only 
make  the  circumcision  of  infants  a  seal  to 
a  blank,  but  you  declare  the  seal  itself  a  nul- 
ity  ;  and  virtually  accuse  the  omniscient  Je- 
hovah of  instituting  a  useless  and  unmean- 
ing ceremony.  This  must  inevitably  fol- 
low, from  what  has  been  proven.  I  have 
shewn,  by  incontestible  evidence,  that  cir- 
cumcision, instead  of  being  a  mere  badge  of 
national  descent,  was  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.  This  you  have  been  constrain- 
ed to  admit,  as  far  as  it  respected  Abraham 
himself.  But,  alarmed  at  the  consequences 
of  tl  is  admission,  you  immediately  declare, 
that,  with  respect  to  his  cfoildrefi,  it  could 
seal  nothing  but  a  blank.  If  is  true  you  are 
driven  to  this  by  your  own  concession,  but 
that  must  be  a  hopeless  resort,  which  obliges 
a  man  to  pronounce  a  divine  institution  a 
mere  nulity.  Peimit  me  to  answer  your 
question,  and  I  will  shew  you  that  cinu inci- 
sion is  something  more  than  a  seal  to  a  blank. 
It  implied  precisely  the  same  when  applied 
to  Abraham's  household,  that  it  did  when 
applied  to  himself.  It  was  in  both  cases,  "a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  HIS  faith."  In 
other  words,  it  was  a  token  of  the  covenant 
which  God  had  made  with  him,  the  gracious 
promises  of  which  he  had  been  pleased  to  ex- 
tend to  his  seed.  It  was  a  visible  mark  that  he 
was  a  believer,  and  that  his  seed  were  heirs 
of  the  believer's  promise.  In  the  same  light  do 
we  regard  infant  baptism.    You  never  heard 


a  Pcedobaptist  affirm  that  the  circumcision 
or  baptism  of  a  child  was  a  seal  of  its  person 
al  faith  ;  but  only  a  seal  of  the  parents'  faith, 
and  a  token  that  the  blessings  of  the  cove- 
nant, which  subsists  between  God  and  the 
parents,  are,  on  certain  conditions,  to  be  ex* 
tended  to  their  seed. 

Lcb.  But  this  appears  to  me  to  make  grace 
hereditary.  "  That  as  sin  is  conveyed  from 
the  parent  to  the  child,  so  in  God's  gracious 
establishment  with  Abraham  and  all  his  seed, 
grace  is  in  like  manner  communicated." — 
This,  I  think,  is  plainly  declared  by  some 
writers  on  your  side  of  the  question.  "  The 
love  and  obedience  of  the  parents,"  says  one, 
"affects  and  forms  the  moral  character  of 
the  children  ;  so  that  their  piety  and  obedi- 
ence, by  the  promise,  convey  spiritual  bles- 
sings to  their  children."  If,  according  to 
these  sentiments,  the  Abrahamic  covenant 
does  not  make  grace  to  run  in  the  blood,  or 
to  descend  by  ordinary  generation,  I  know 
not  what  words  can  express  it. 

JEug.  If  the  view  I  have  given  of  the  cov* 
enant,  or  the  quotation  you  have  just  made, 
does  express  such  a  sentiment,  then  I  ac- 
knowledge I  do  not  understand  English.  In 
the  Abrahamic,  as  in  every  other  covenant, 
certain  conditions  are  proposed  by  the  cove- 
nantee, to  be  complied  with  by  the  covenan- 
ter ;  on  the  performance  of  which,  the  pro- 
posed benefit  is  suspended.  Hence  God  said 
to  Abraham,  "  Walk  before  me  and  be  thou 
perfect,  and  1  will  establish  my  covenant  be- 


70 

tween  me  and  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee 
in  their  generations,  for  an  everlasting  cov- 
enant;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee  and  thy  seed 
after  thee."  On  condition  of  his  fidelity, 
the  blessing  was  to  descend  to  his  children ; 
and  on  condition  of  the  fidelity  of  each  suc- 
ceeding generation,  the  blessing  was  to  de- 
scend from  parents  to  children,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant.  And  now,  permit  me  to 
direct  vour  attention  once  more  to  Gen.  xviii. 
19.  "  For  I  know  that  he  will  command  his 
children  and  his  household  after  him,  and 
they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  to  do 
justice  and  judgment  ;  that  the  Lord  may 
bring  upon  Abraham,  that  which  he  hath 
spoken  of  him/'  Here,  Abraham's  fidelity 
is  distinctly  recognised  as  the  means  of  ren- 
dering his  children  pious  ;  (for  surely  "to 
keep  the  way  of  the  Lord,  and  do  justice 
and  judgment,"  implies  as  much  as  this  ;)  and 
as  the  ground  on  which  the  blessing  of  the 
covenant  should  be  transmitted  to  posterity. 
Besides  this  there  are  many  positive  declara- 
tions and  gracious  promises  in  the  word  of 
God,  with  respect  to  the  children  of  believ- 
ers, which,  to  say  the  least,  present  vast  en- 
couragement to  parental  fidelity.  Take  the 
following  as  examples.  "  Because  he  loved 
thy  fathers,  therefore  lie  chose  their  seed  af- 
ter them. — Thou  shalt  keep  therefore  his 
statutes  and  his  commandments,  that  it  may 
go  well  with  thee,  and  with  thy  children  af- 
ter thee."  Deut.  iv.  37,  40.  "Only  the  Lord 
had  delight  in  thy  fathers  to  love  them,  and 


71 

he  chose  their  seed  after  them ;  even  you,  a- 
bove  all  people  as  it  is  this  clay."  Deut.  x, 
15.  "  Observe  and  hear  all  these  words 
which  I  command  thee,  that  it  may  go  well 
with  thee,  and  with  thy  children  after  thee 
for  ever,  when  thou  doest  that  which  is  good 
and  right,  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  thy  God." 
Deut.  xii.  25.  "  Train  up  a  child  in  the  way 
he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old,  he  will 
not  depart  from  it."  Prov.  xxii.  6.  "  And 
they  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be  their 
God;  and  I  will  give  them  one  heart  and 
one  way,  that  they  may  fear  me  for  ever ; 
for  the  good  of  them  and  of  their  children 
after  them."  Jer.  xxxii.  38,  39.  "  For  he  es- 
tablished a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed 
a  law  in  Israel,  which  he  commanded  our  ja- 
ihers,  that  they  should  make  them  known  to 
their  children :  That  the  generation  to  come 
might  know  them,  even  the  children  which 
should  be  born;  who  should  arise  and  declare 
them  to  their  children  :  That  they  might  set 
their  hope  in  God,  and  not  forget  the  works 
of  God,  but  keep  his  commandments"  PsaL 
lxxviii.  5,  6,  7. 

This  is  so  far  from  representing  grace  as 
"running  in  the  blood,"  or  "  communicated 
by  ordinary  generation,"  that  it  is  suspen- 
ding it  on  the  condition  of  the  covenant — 
the  promise  of  God  to  the  fidelity  of  parents. 
And  this  is  what  the  writer  whom  you  quo- 
ted, expressly  asserts.  "  The  piety  and  obe- 
dience of  the  parents  does,  by  the  promise," 
not  by  ordinary  generation  "  convey  spii  itu- 


72 

al  blessings  to  their  children."  You  may 
object  to  this  mode  of  procedure,  if  you 
please  ;  but  remember,  I  am  not  your  antago- 
nist :  it  is  with  God  that  you  must  contend, 
and  to  him  you  must  answer  it.  As  an  ab- 
solute Sovereign,  he  has  an  unquestionable 
right  to  communicate  the  blessings  of  his 
grace  in  his  own  way.  And  if  he  has  been. 
pleased,  to  transmit  them  ordinarily  in  a  co- 
venant way,  from  faithful  parents  to  their 
children,  neither  you,  nor  I,  nor  any  other 
person,  has  a  right  to  inquire  "  Why  doest 
thou  so?  "  And  that  he  really  does  so,  the 
terms  of  the  covenant,  the  promises  of  his 
word,  and  the  blessing  which  generally  at- 
tends, the  diligent  exe^ionsof  faithful  pa- 
rents, plainly  shew. 

And  although  God  acts  as  a  Sovereign  in 
this  case,  and  w7e  may  not  be  able  to  disco- 
ver all  his  reasons  for  adopting  this  method 
of  communicating  his  grace,  yet  we  can  per- 
ceive a  striking  analogy  between  this  and  a- 
nother  part  of  his  holy  administration.  It 
was  by  a  covenant  transaction  which  suspen- 
ded the  moral  character  of  children  on  the 
conduct  of  their  parents,  that  the  whole  hu- 
man race  have  been  involved  in  ruin.  This 
was  the  first  method  whicli  infinite  wisdom 
saw  fit  to  adopt  for  the  government  of  this 
world.  Now,  I  ask,  does  it  not,  at  first 
view,  appear  reasonable  to  suppose,  that 
when  the  Lord,  in  infinite  mercy,  began  to 
meditate  the  recovery  of  fallen  man,  he 
would  adopt  a  method,  which  should  be,  in 


73 

some  respects,  analogous  to  that  by  which 
they  were  involved  in  ruin.  In  consequence 
of  the  first  covenant,  which  included  all  the 
posterity  of  Adam,  he  could  not  consistent- 
ly enter  into  a  new  covenant,  by  virtue  of 
which,  grace  should  be  communicated  by 
ordinary  generation.  But  he  could  with 
perfect  consistency,  by  the  covenant  of  grace 
founded  in  the  atonement  of  his  Son,  trans- 
mit the  blessings  of  his  grace  by  promise  from 
faithful  parents  to  their  children.  And  this 
is  manifestly  the  import  and  design  of  the 
Abrahamic  covenant. 

But  there  is  another  light  in  which  I  wish 
to  present  this  subject.  The  Lord  governs 
the  moral,  as  well  as  the  natural  world  by  the 
use  of  means.  In  this  manner  the  moral 
characters  of  his  people  are  formed.  In  this 
point  of  view,  we  discover  a  singular  pro- 
priety in  the  divine  procedure  in  the  case 
before  us.  What  stronger  principle  in  hu- 
man nature,  than  parental  affection,  could 
have  been  made  subservient  to  the  cause  of 
religion  ?  AVhat  so  likely  to  secure  the  reli- 
gious education  of  children,  as  the  promise 
of  spiritual  blessings  for  them,  on  the  condi- 
tion of  the  fidelity  of  their  parents?  And  in 
reference  to  this  we  may  ask,  why  is  man, 
who  is  endowed  with  reason,  and  who  is  des- 
tined to  be  lord  of  the  creation,  brought  into 
existence  in  a  more  helpless  condition  than 
the  meanest  brute  ?  Why  must  he  be  nursed 
and  fostered  with  parental  tenderness  and 
care  for  years,  before  he  is  capable  of  seek- 
7 


74 

ing  an  independent  livelihood  ?  That  man 
must  he  an  infidel,  who  doe?  not  regard  this 
as  the  wise  Constitution  of  Heaven,  to  give 
the  parent  opportunity,  to  form  the  y«;ung 
and  tender  mind  to  virtuous  habits.  And 
it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  the  prominent 
traits  of  charaeter,  and  the  leading  maxims 
of  life,  are  usually  formed  under  the  hand 
of  parents,  before  their  children  have  attain- 
ed adult  years.  I  do  not  mean  to  be  under- 
stood that  1  suppose  children  are  usually 
renewed  before  that  time,  (though  this  might 
indeed  be  expected,  if  parents  were  in  any 
good  degree  faithful,)  but,  that  their  distin- 
guishing characteristics  are  formed,  and 
those  sentiments  imbibed,  which  are  usual- 
ly sanctified  to  the  salvation  of  their  souls. 
It  is  my  deliberate  opinion,  that  the  proper 
education  and  discipline  of  children  from 
infancy  to  the  age  of  twelve  or  fourteen 
years,  does  more  towards  forming  their 
character  for  life,  than  all  the  other  means 
of  grace,  if  these  are  neglected.  There- 
fore, the  Lord  has  so  frequently  enjoined 
that  duty,  and  encouraged  its  faithful  per- 
formance by  the  most  gracious  promises  of 
success. 

Leb.  But  "  if  God  did  not  engage  abso- 
lutely to  save  all  Abraham's  natural  poster- 
ity, but  only  such  as  trusted  in,  and  obeyed 
him  ;  this  would  place  such  as  claim  an  in- 
terest in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  ex- 
actly  upon  a  level  with  all  others" 

Eug.  I  am  very  willing  to  admit  that  the 


75 

promise  in  that  case  instead  of  being  abso- 
lute is  conditional  ;  but  this  affords  no 
ground  for  your  conclusion.  For,  the  bles- 
sing promised  to  the  seed  of  believers,  is 
suspended,  not  immediately  on  their  faith, 
but  on  the  fidelity  of  their  parents  ;  which 
is  to  be  the  means  of  their  sanctification. — 
This,  therefore,  instead  of  placing  them 
"  exactly  on  a  level  with  all  others"  highly 
distinguishes  their  condition  and  affords  pe- 
culiar encouragement  to  expect  their  salva- 
tion. 

Leb.  Still  it  appears  to  me,  that  if  the 
Lord  had  adopted  the  method  you  are  ad- 
vocating, we  might  generally  expect  that 
the  children  of  believers,  as  they  grow  up, 
would  become  Christians.  Instead  of  this, 
we  often  find  the  Lord  passing  by  those  who 
have  been  educated  with  the  greatest  care, 
and  calling  in  others  who  have  been  brought 
up  without  any  restraint  or  religious  in- 
struction. In  fact,  I  have  been  in  the  hab- 
it of  supposing  that  I  have  no  more  reason 
to  expect  my  children  will  be  saved,  on  ac- 
count of  any  relation  they  bear  to  me,  than 
the  children  of  the  most  abandoned  among 
my  neighbours. 

Eug.  This  objection  would  have  great 
weight,  if  it  were  founded  in  fact,  and  on 
general  principles;  but  there  is  its  deficien- 
cy. We  might  indeed  expect  to  see  the 
Lord  generally  owning  his  covenant  in  the 
sanctification  of  the  children  of  believers, 
provided  their  parents  were  faithful.     It  is 


76 

not  by  ordinary  generation,  as  I  have  al- 
ready shewn,  that  children  become  parta- 
kers of  the  blessing,  but  by  promise ;  and 
that  promise  is  suspended  on  the  fidelity  of 
the  parents.  In  the  present  degenerate  age, 
we  have  not  a  fair  experiment  of  the  case. 
Parents,  even  in  the  Paedobaptist  churches, 
are  too  unmindful  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  high  responsibility  of  their 
station.  That  strictness  of  discipline  and 
the  frequent  and  faithful  instruction  of  chil- 
dren, so  frequently  enjoined  in  the  scrip- 
ture as  the  means  of  their  salvation,  are  now 
most  awfully  neglected  ;  and  we  see  the  re- 
sult of  it,  not  only  in  the  numerous  instan- 
ces of  impiety  and  ungodliness  which  are  pre- 
sented among  the  children  of  professed  be- 
lievers, but  also  in  the  general  complexion 
of  society.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  in  this  day, 
parents  in  general,  even  those  who  profess 
to  be  Christians,  appear  more  solicitous  to 
lay  up  money  for  their  children,  than  to  se- 
cure the  salvation  of  their  immortal  souls  ? 
And  do  they  not  evidently  labour  tenfold 
more  for  the  former,  than  for  the  latter  ob^ 
ject  ?  How  many  are  there  who  call  them- 
selves the  people  of  God,  who  go  from  sab- 
bath to  sabbath,  if  not  longer,  without  say- 
ing one  word  directly  to  their  families  on 
the  great  concerns  of  salvation  !  And  can 
you  wonder  that  children  trained  in  this 
manner  should  grow  up  without  becoming 
pious?  God  has  never  promised  to  sanctify 
them  under  such  circumstances ;  and  if  he 


77 

ever  does,  it  will  not  be  in  a  covenant  way, 
but  in  the  exercise  of  the  same  sovereignty, 
in  which  he  sanctifies  the  children  of  irreli- 
gious parents.  And  1  have  no  doubt,  he 
frequently  calls  in  such,  not  only  for  the 
more  conspicuous  display  of  his  sovereign- 
ty, but  to  reprove  his  professed  people  and 
shame  them  into  obedience.  And  most  a- 
larming  must  be  the  condition  of  those  who 
take  occasion  from  such  instances  to  say, 
that  it  is  useless  to  educate  children  in  a  re- 
ligious manner,  with  the  hope  or  expecta- 
tion of  their  being  sanctified.  They  coun- 
teract the  gracious  design  of  heaven,  and 
expose  their  children  as  well  as  themselves 
to  eternal  perdition. 

Moreover,  even  among  the  parents  who 
devote  considerable  time  and  care  to  the 
religious  education  of  their  children,  a  very 
erroneous  method  of  instruction  frequently 
obtains.  From  an  apprehension  that  little 
children  are  incapable  of  understanding  the 
great  doctrines  of  regeneration,  repentance, 
faith,  &c.  they  begin  by  telling  them  they 
must  not  lie,  nor  swear,  nor  break  the  sab- 
bath, but  speak  the  truth,  &c.  &c.  and  then 
they  will  go  to  heaven.  What  is  this,  but 
to  teach  them  to  depend  on  their  own  works, 
for  acceptance  with  God.  And  to  this  very 
cause,  I  apprehend,  is,  in  a  great  measure, 
to  be  ascribed  that  violent  opposition  which 
the  doctrines  of  grace  meet  with,  from  some 
of  those  who  have  received  a  religious  edu- 
cation. They  have  been  familiar  whh  the 
7* 


78 

scriptures,  but  have  never  become  acquaint- 
ed with  the  system  of  divine  truth.  They 
have  heard  much  about  sin,  but  have  never 
learned  the  plague  of  their  own  hearts. — The 
object,  which  such  parents  have  in  view,  is 
evidently  laid  too  low.  They  seem  to  aim 
more  at  making  their  children  merely  mor- 
al, and  so  rendering  them  good  members  of 
society  ;  than  at  making  them  pious,  and 
thus  preparing  them  for  the  world  of  glory. 
There  is  surely  no  difficulty  in  teaching 
children,  as  soon  as  they  can  understand 
their  mother  tongue,  all  the  leading  doc- 
trines of  divine  revelation.  Let  the  parent 
remind  them  in  an  easy,  familiar  way,  that 
they  do  not  love  God,  nor  his  sabbath,  nor 
his  worship;  that  the  subject  of  religion  is 
unpleasant  to  them;  that  heaven  is  a  place 
where  there  is  no  other  entertainment  than 
the  pure  and  holy  worship  of  God  ;  and 
where  is  the  child  of  common  sense,  that 
can  understand  language,  but  must  feel  that 
he  is  a  sinner,  and  in  need  of  a  change  in 
the  temper  of  his  mind  ?  I  mention  this 
merely  as  an  example.  In  a  similar  man- 
ner, they  may  be  taught  all  the  distinguish- 
ing doctrines  of  grace.  To  the  want  of  at- 
tention in  this  particular,  or  to  some  other 
failure  in  duty,  may  be  imputed,  those 
instances  of  impiety  which  occur,  even  in 
the  families  of  those  who  are  considered 
eminently  pious.  Parents  who  are  faithful 
in  some  important  duties,  frequently  fail  in 
others,  which  are  equally  important  in  form- 
ing the  moral  character  of  children.. 


79 

But,  after  all,  is  it  a  fact,  that  instances  of 
hopeful  conversion  are  as  frequent  among 
those  who  have  been  brought  up  without,  as 
among  those  who  have  been  favoured  with, 
religious  instruction  ?  On  this  point  1  ap- 
peal to  your  own  knowledge  and  observa- 
tion. Go  even  into  your  own  church,  and 
do  you  not  find  a  large  majority  who  date 
the  first  strivings  of  the  Spirit  with  them,  in 
early  life;  and  in  many  instances  distinctly 
refer  to  parental  instruction  as  the  means? 
And  if  this  is  the  case  in  the  present  age, 
while  there  is  so  little  fidelity  among  pa- 
rents, how  general  might  we  not  expect  it 
to  be,  if  they  were  faithful  to  the  souls  com- 
mitted to  their  charge  ?  Again,  in  some  of 
your  churches  you  find  a  number  who  were 
born  of  parents  in  our  connexion,  were 
dedicated  to  God  in  their  infancy  and  are 
become  hopefully  pious.  These  you  often 
boast  of,  as  signal  trophies  to  your  cause. 
But  if  they  prove  any  tiling,  it  is  simply  this, 
that  people  may  become  real  Christians,  and 
yet  fall  into  error.  The  balance  of  testi- 
mony is  much  against  you.  Instead  of  pro- 
ring  that  God  regards  infant  baptism  with 
that  abhorrence  that  you  do,  it  shews  that 
he  owns  his  covenant,  by  sanctifving  the 
seed  of  his  people  in  a  covenant  way. 

With  respect  to  the  last  idea  you  sug- 
gested, I  ask  you  solemnly,  is  it  true  that 
you  feel  as  though  you  had  no  more  reason 
to  expect  the  salvation  of  your  children,  on 
account  of  the  relation  they  bear  to  yoi*5 


80 

than  those  of  your  irreligious  neighbours? 
As  a  Christian,  you  doubtless  sometimes  en- 
joy  seasons  of  peculiar  communion   with 
God.     You  feel  assured,  or  strongly  per- 
suaded of  his  favour.     You  come   to  his 
throne  of  grace  with  great  confidence  and 
raised  expectations.    By  faith  you  hear  him 
ask  you  your  requests;  and  see  him  stand- 
ing ready  to  answer.     Now  I  appeal  to  your 
conscience  and  Christian  experience,  do  you 
at  such  a  time  feel  as  though  you  had  no 
peculiar  encouragement  to  pray  for,  and  ex- 
pect the  salvation  of  your  children,  rather 
than  others?  I  know  Christian  benevolence 
requires  you   "to  love  your  neighbour  as 
yourself,"    and  therefore  to  desire  the  sal- 
vation of  others.     But  that  same  benevo- 
lence requires  you  to  be  more  solicitous 
for   both  the  temporal  and  eternal  good  of 
your  own  children,  than  that  of  others  ;  not 
because  they  are  better,  but  because  God 
has   committed   them  to   your   immediate 
charge.     Therefore  I  ask,  do  you  not  feel, 
at  such  a  time,  peculiar  encouragement  to 
pray  for  your  own  dear  children,  arising, 
not  merely  from  the  frame  of  your  mind, 
but  from  their  relation  to  you  1  Though  you 
may  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  they  are 
really  better  than  others,   yet  can  you  be- 
lieve that  God  regards  you  as  one  of  his  be- 
loved people,  and  not  feel  a  kind  of  confi- 
dence that,  for  the  sake  ol  the  favour  which 
he  bears  to  you,   he  wi'l    be   propitious  to 
those  whom  he  hath  bound  to  you  by  so 


81 

many  tender  lies?  However  you  may  feel 
on  this  point  while  engaged  in  cold  specu- 
lation, I  know  how  you  must  feel  when  your 
heart  is  warm  and  breathes  the  spirit  of  a- 
doption.     And  I  believe  I  know  how  you 
have  felt.    You  recollect  what  you  told  me, 
last  summer,  after  the  death  of  your  little 
daughter  of  ten  years  of  age  ;  how  different 
your  feelings  were  on  that  occasion,  and  on 
the  death  of  your  son,  of  the   same  age, 
whom  you  lost  several  years  ago.     I  think 
you  informed  me  that  in  the  latter  case, 
your  conscience  was  awfully  harrowed  up 
under  a  sense  of  your  past  unfaithfulness — 
that  you  had  never  instructed  the  child  into 
the  things  of  religion,  nor  offered  up  one 
fervent  prayer  for  his  salvation.     And  these 
reflections,  if  my  memory  serves  me,  were 
the  first  effectual  means  of  your  own  awa- 
kening.    But  you  said  when  the  Lord  laid 
your  little  daughter  on  a  sick  and  dying 
bed,  you  felt  a  peculiar  satisfaction  in  be- 
ing able  to  go  to  the  throne  of  grace  and 
commend  her  soul  to  that  God  who  had  ex- 
ercised sovereign  mercy  towards  you  :  and 
that  when  she  was  taken  away,  you  enjoyed 
great  consolation  in  the  reflection  that,  thor 
imperfectly,  you  had,  in  some  good  degree,, 
instructed  her  in  the  way  of  salvation,  and 
had   often  borne  her  on   your  heart  at  the 
throne  of  mercy.     And   although   you  did 
not  then  acknowledge  that  on  that  ground 
you  entertained  a  hope  of  her  salvation,  yet 
I  now  ask  you,  was  there  not  some  linger* 


82 

ing  of  soul  on  this  very  point?  Did  you  not 
feel  some  kind  of  confidence  or  hope  to 
which  you  were  an  utter  stranger  when 
your  son  departed  life? — I  am  willing  to 
spare  you  the  pain  of  an  answer  ;  but  I 
must  and  do  believe,  that  however  you  and 
your  brethren,  in  the  day  of  prosperity, 
may  be  disposed  to  revile,  what  we  call 
God's  gracious  covenant  on  behalf  of  the 
seed  of  believers,  you  yourselves  do  rest 
down  on  that  very  ground  when  your  chil- 
dren are  removed  by  death. 

Leb.  But  sir,  this  view  of  the  subject  I 
think  is  "calculated  to  do  essential  damage 
to  the  souls  of  men ;  because  you  tell  your 
children  that  they  are  brought  into  cove- 
nant, that  the  seal  of  the  covenant  is  upon 
them — that  baptism  seals  and  signifies  their 
ingrafting  into  Christ — that  they  are  dedica- 
ted to  God  in  baptism,  and  in  that  sense  are 
bis  children,  included  in  the  covenant  God 
made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed — that  they 
are  in  the  circle  of  those,  out  of  whom  God 
has  promised,  at  least  chiefly,  to  select  num- 
bers to  perpetuate  his  church,  and  there- 
fore that  they  are  more  likely  to  be  con- 
verted than  others;  and  that  those  children 
who  are  unbaptized  are  left  to  the  uncove- 
nanted  mercies  of  God."  This  appears  to 
me  peculiarly  calculated  to  make  children 
rest  down  contented  without  a  change  of 
heart,  "  depending  on  what  had  been  done 
to  them  by  their  parents  in  infancy,  for  sal- 
vation. It  is  greatly  to  be  feared  that  many 
are  deceived  in  this  way." 


83 

Eug.  That  this  view  of  the  covenant  has 
been  thus  perverted  in  some  cases,  is  very 
possible.  And  what  institution  or  doctrine 
has  not  been  pervei  ted  by  ignorant  or  cor- 
rupt men?  But  is  this  circumstance  to  be 
made  the  standard  of  truth  and  error?  If 
so,  then  you  must  reject  not  only  infant 
membership,  but  the  whole  of  divine  reve- 
lation. It  lias  often  been  objected  to  the 
doctrines  of  divine  sovereignty  and  the  per- 
severance of  the  saints,  that  they  are  calcu- 
lated to  make  men  secure  in  sin ;  and  you 
well  know  that  many  have  thus  perverted 
these  sacred  truths.  But  does  it  follow  from 
these  facts,  that  these  doctrines  are  not 
true  ?  "  God  forbid  !  yea,  let  God  be  true, 
but  every  man  a  liar."  The  same  answer 
applies  with  equal  propriety  to  your  ob- 
jection. For  if  the  doctrines  of  grace  are 
thus  perverted  by  some,  it  is  not  strange 
that  the  covenant  of  grace  should  share  the 
same  fate,  in  similar  hands.  But  that  this 
perversion  necessarily  follows  from  the  ac- 
knowledgement of  the  covenant  in  the  view 
which  I  have  given,  I  shall  not  admit.  Sup- 
pose I  tell  my  children,  "  You  are  brought 
into  covenant  with  God — the  seal  of  that 
covenant  is  upon  you,  and  the  Lord  claims 
you  as  his,  in  a  peculiar  sense,  because  you 
are  the  children  of  his  professed  followers ; 
you  are  "  near  the  kingdom  of  God ;"  you 
enjoy  special  privileges,  and  on  that  account 
I  have  more  reason  to  hope  for  your  salva- 
tion than  that  of  those  who  are  destitute  of 


84 

these  privileges.  But  notwithstanding  all 
this,  you  are  by  nature,  "children  of  wrath 
even  as  others."  Your  being  born  of  Chris- 
tian parents,  although  it  affords  you  distin- 
guished advantages,  does  not  secure  your 
eternal  salvation,  without  personal  holiness. 
You  are  possessed  of  wicked  hearts,  which 
must  be  sanctified  by  divine  grace,  or  you 
must  go  down  to  hell  ;  and  if  you  do  perish, 
you  will  sink  in  the  lake  of  perdition,  far 
below  those  children  who  have  been  brought 
up  by  ungodly  parents — your  condemna- 
tion will  be  aggravated,  just  in  proportion  to 
the  superior  privileges  which  you  have  abu- 
sed. Therefore  I  intreat  you  to  repent  and 
voluntarily  dedicate  yourselves  to  God." 
Now  Lebbeus,  would  you  call  this  "  an  af- 
front  to  common  sense  ?"  Would  you  say 
your  punishment  was  greater  than  you  could 
bear,  if  you  were  required  to  reconcile  these 
things  with  sound  reason  or  the  word  of 
God  ?"  Or,  is  there  any  thing  in  such  an  ad- 
dress, that  is  calculated  to  make  children 
easy  in  sin,  trusting  their  salvation  upon 
what  their  parents  did  for  them  in  infancy  ? 
No  !  my  friend  ;  human  nature,  although 
greatly  debased  by  sin,  is  not  yet  reduced 
to  the  level  of  the  brutes.  You  must  be 
sensible  that  when  our  Saviour  told  the 
scribe,  "  thou  art  not  far  from  the  kingdom 
of  God,"  this  afforded  him  no  just  ground 
on  which  to  rest  a  single  moment.  Indivi- 
duals as  well  as  communities  may  be  exalt- 
ed to  heaven,  and  yet  sink  to  the  lowest  re- 


85 

gions  of  hell.     I  may  tell  my  congregation^ 
that  they  are  near  the  kingdom  of  God, 
compared  with  those  who  are  destitute  of 
the  privileges  which  they  enjoy  ;  and  that 
those  who  attend  regularly  and  devoutly  on 
the  means  of  grace,  are  more  likely  to  be 
converted,  than  those  [who  habitually  neg- 
lect divine  institutions  :  not  because  their 
hearts  are  any  better,  but  because  it  is  the 
ordinance  of  heaven  that  "  faith"  ordinarily 
"cometh  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
word  of  God."     But  does  this  afford  just 
reason  for  them  to  rest  at  ease  in  sin,  and 
give  themselves  no  concern  about  a  change 
of  heart ;  especially  when  it  is  added,  that 
the  misimprovement  of  these  distinguished 
privileges  will  greatly  aggravate  their  con- 
demnation ?  That  man  must  be  destitute  of 
common  sense  who  would  form  such  a  con- 
clusion.     Equally  preposterous  would  it 
be  in  the  former  case.     Yea,  I  believe  you 
will  readily  admit,  that  nothing  could  be 
better  calculated  to  arouse  the  attention  of 
children  to  the  concerns  of  their  souls,  than 
the  sentiments  I  have   suggested.     And  if 
such  addresses  were  frequently  and  affec- 
tionately urged  upon  children  by  their  pa- 
rents and  the  churches,  we  should  soon  reap 
the  blessed  fruits  of  their  fidelity. 

Leb.  I  acknowledge  that  the  subject  ap- 
pears in  a  light  in  which  I  never  contem- 
plated it  before.  But  sir,  I  wish  to  hear 
your  other  arguments  in  favour  of  the  same- 
ness of  the  church. 

8 


SECTION  III. 

Eiigenius.  My  2nd  argument  is,  that  the 
same  principles  of  holiness  and  obedience, 
were  required  of  the  Jewish,  that  are  re- 
quired of  the  Christian  church. 

Leb.  This  we  readily  admit.  "  God  re- 
quires all  the  subjects  of  his  moral  govern- 
ment, whether  in  heaven,  earth  or  hell,  to  be 
holy."  This  argument,  therefore,  proves 
nothing  to  your  purpose,  unless  you  can 
make  it  appear,  that  these  principles  of  ho- 
liness and  obedience  were  made  the  terms 
of  admission,  or  condition  of  a  standing  in 
that  community. 

Eug.  This  is  precisely  what  I  calculate  to 
do  ;  and  just  what  I  think  I  did  accomplish 
in  my  discourses  yesterday.  And  I  be- 
lieve, if  you  had  heard  me  then,  with  the 
candour  which  you  now  profess,  you  would 
have  received  full  conviction  of  the  truth 
of  my  position. 

Leb.  I  acknowledge  you  made  it  appear 
very  evident,  that  the  Lord  did  require  ho- 
liness in  order  to  a  standing  in  that  church  ; 
but  this,  I  conceive,  was  nothing  more  than 
typical  holiness.  For  I  have  often  heard 
our  ministers  say,  "  w7e  are  no  where  taught 
in  the  word  of  God,  that  moral  holiness  was 
necessary  to  membership  in  the  Jewish 
church,  or  indispensible  to  fill  the  highest 
office  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel."  The  fact 
is  "  the  Jewish  church  was"  merely  "  tyjri- 


87 

cal.  A  degree  of  similarity  always  exists 
between  the  type  and  antitype."  But  "  al- 
though there  was  some  shade  of  likeness  be- 
tween the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches,  still 
the  Christian  church,  set  up  by  the  coming 
and  ministry  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  wa9 
entirely  new  and  distinct." 

Eug.  That  there  were  many  things  typi» 
cal  under  that  dispensation,  yea,  that  their 
modes  and  forms  of  worship  were  in  a  great 
measure  so,  no  person  will  deny.  But  that 
all  the  holiness  which  the  Lord  required  in 
order  to  a  standing  in  that  church,  was  noth- 
ing more  than  typical  holiness,  though  it  has 
been  often  asserted,  has  not  a  shadow  of  evi- 
dence to  support  it;  but  like  many  other 
of  your  assertions,  it  is  in  direct  opposition 
to  the  word  of  God.  You  might  just  as 
safely  say,  that  the  men  and  women  who 
composed  that  community,  were  not  real 
men  and  women,  but  were  types  and  shad- 
ows of  those  who  should  live  under  the  gos- 
pel dispensation. 

But  suppose  I  should  admit,  for  argument 
sake,  that  the  Jewish  church  was  merely  a 
type  of  the  Christian  church ;  the  land  of 
Canaan  a  type  of  heaven  ;  in  short,  that 
there  was  no  reality  in  any  thing  of  a  re- 
ligious nature  under  that  dispensation ;  that 
it  was  all  a  commonwealth  of  types : — You 
have  just  admitted  that  "  some  degree  of 
similarity  always  exists  between  the  type 
and  antitype — some  shade  of  likeness  be- 
tween the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches:" 


88 

Now  I  ask  you,  where  is  there  any  thing  i» 
the  Baptist  church,  to  answer  to  the  type  of 
infant-membership  in  the  Jewish  church? 
Such  a  distinguishing  feature  in  the  type,, 
must  be  expected  to  have  a  corresponding 
feature  in  the  antitype.  But  where  is  there 
"  a  shade  of  likeness" — the  least  "  degree  of 
similarity  ?"  I  defy  Argus  himself  to  dis- 
cover the  resemblance.  And  yet  the  Jewish 
church  was  a  mere  type  of  the  Christian ; 
and  a  deformed  type  too,  it  seems.  It  had 
one  enormous  excressence,  to  which  there 
is  nothing  correspondent  in  the  antitype  ; 
that  is,  provided  the  Baptist  church  is  the 
true  Gospel  church.*  Again,  admit  that  the 
moral  character,  which  your  people  usually 
ascribe  to  the  ancient  church  is  correct,  that 
they  were  generally  a  base,  corrupt  and  idol- 
atrous people  ;  are  you  willing  to  apply 
this  part  of  the  type  to  the  antitype  ?  Does 
this  exhibit  "  a  similarity — a  shade  of  like- 

*  I  am  sensible  that  the  Baptists  apply  this  feature  of  their 
type  to  the  succession  of  the  church.  They  say,  the  children 
in  the  Jewish  church  were  typical  of  the  new  converts,  who, 
from  time  to  time,  should  be  added  under  the  Christian  dispen- 
sation. But  this  does  not  remove  the  deformity  of  their  type. 
These  converts  are  the  children  of  the  church  as  a  collective  bo- 
dy, and  are  begotten  by  the  instrumentality  of  gospel  ministers  : 
but  the  Jewish  children  were  children  of  the  members  in  their 
individual  capacity  ;  and  the  children  of  private  members  no 
less  than  those  of  the  priests,  were  regarded  as  the  children  of 
the  covenant ;  and  there  were  at  least  ten  times  as  many  of  the 
former  as  of  the  latter.  Again,  Christian  converts,  among  the 
Baptists  are  no  sooner  born  than  they  are  made  adult  members 
of  the  church  ;  not  an  hour  is  to  be  lost  in  getting  them  under 
water  :  but  the  Jewish  children  were  for  years  in  a  state  of  mi- 
nority, in  which  they  were  trained  up  for  the  Lord's  service. 
Therefore  I  still  affirm  that  there  is  no  resemblance  between  the 
type  and  antitype,  if  the  Baptist  church  be  that  antitype. 


89 

ness"  to  the  holiness  of  the  Baptist  church  f 
Without  any  disparagement  to  your  com- 
munion, (for  there  are  seasons  of  declen- 
sion and  instances  of  apostacy  in  all  chur- 
ches,) I  will  venture  to  say,  that  the  task  of 
pointing  out  a  resemblance  in  this  particu- 
lar, would  be  infinitely  less  burdensome 
than  in  the  former  case. 

But  to  return  to  the  point  in  hand.  I  am 
to  prove,  that  real  holiness  was  requisite  to 
a  standing  in  the  Jewish  church.  And  in 
order  to  this,  I  shall,  briefly  review  the  A- 
brahamic  covenant,  in  its  original  institu- 
tion, and  subsequent  renewals  ;  from  which 
it  will  appear  that  all  the  adult  persons  in- 
cluded in  it,  are  recognised  as  visible  saints  ; 
and  the  sanctification  of  their  seed,  as  a  con- 
sequence resulting  from  God's  love  to  them, 
and  his  blessing  on  their  faithful  labours. 
But  before  I  proceed,  permit  me  to  remind 
you,  that  the  question  is  not,  whether  they 
were  all  really  holy  ?  for  this  has  probably 
never  been  true  of  any  church  under  hea- 
ven. Even  in  the  days  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity there  were  tares  among  the  wheat. 
Nor  is  the  question,  whether  there  were- 
more  hypocrites  under  the  former,  than  un- 
der the  present  dispensation  ?  This  may  be 
true,  and  yet  the  point  at  issue  remain  unde- 
termined. The  question  is  simply  this, 
whether  real  holiness  was  requisite  to  enti- 
tle a  man  to  the  blessings  of  that  covenant, 
and  consequently  whether  a  profession  of 
this  was  required  by  the  Lord  in  order  to  & 
standing  in  that  church? 


M 

When  the  Lord  chose  Abraham  and  cal- 
led him  in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  it  is  recor- 
ded concerning  him,  that  "  the  Lord  found 
his  hcartfaithful  before  him,  and  he  made  a 
covenant  with  him  ?'  in  which  he  promised 
"  to  bless  him  and  his  posterity."  Compare 
Gen.  xii.  1,  3.  and  Neh.  ix.  7,  8.  Here  A- 
braham's  holiness  of  heart  is  distinctly  re- 
cognised, as  the  reason  of  God's  conferring 
this  distinguished  honour  and  privilege  upon 
him  and  his  seed.  In  confirmation  of  this? 
the  Lord  thus  addresses  him  on  the  renewal 
of  that  covenant ;  "  Fear  not  Abraham  ;  I 
am  thy  shield  and  exceeding  great  reward." 
And  it  is  added  "  he  believed  in  the  Lord, 
and  he  counted  it  to  him  for  righteousness." 
Gen.  xv.  1,  6.  Upon  which  the  Apostle  de- 
clares "  he  was  called  the  friend  of  God." 
Jam.  ii.  23.  And  again,  when  the  Lord  ap- 
peared to  Abraham  for  the  purpose  of"  es- 
tablishing" the  covenant,  and  appointing  a 
visible  seal  by  which  its  existence  should 
be  known,  he  thus  addresses  him;  "  I  am 
the  almighty  god  :  walk  before  me  and  be 
thou  perfect : — And  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed 
after  thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  ever- 
lasting covenant,  to  be  a  god  unto  thee 
and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.  Gen.  xvii.  1,  7. 
Here  also,  Abraham's  holiness  is  dictinctly 
recognised,  as  the  occasion  of  God's  enter- 
ing into  covenant  with  him  and  promising 
to  bless  his  seed.  And  again  the  Lord  says- 
"  Shall  I  hide  from  Abraham  that  which  1  do% 


,  91 

seeing  that  Abraham  shall  surely  become  a 
great  and  mighty  nation,  and  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him.  Fori 
know  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the 
way  of  the  Lord  to  do  justice  and  judgment, 
that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that 
which  he  hath  spoken  of  him."  Gen.  xviii. 
17,  19.  This  passage  presents  to  view  the 
five  following  sentiments  which  are  decisive 
on  this  subject,  viz.  1.  Abraham  was  pos- 
sessed of  real  holiness.  2.  The  possession 
of  this  holiness,  was  the  occasion  of  God's 
treating  him  with  so  great  kindness  and  fa- 
miliarity.  3.  His  fidelity  to  his  children,  was 
the  appointed  means  of  rendering  them  holy 
like  himself;  and  because  the  Lord  knew 
that  he  would  be  faithful,  therefore,  he  had 
extended  the  promise  to  his  seed.  4.  Unless 
they  became  personally  holy  it  was  impos- 
sible for  God  to  fulfil  the  promises  which 
he  had  made  to  Abraham.  And  5.  The  foun- 
dation of  the  whole  scheme,  or  the  meri- 
torious ground  on  which  these  blessings 
were  promised  to  Abraham  and  his  children, 
was  "  the  seed,"  in  whom  "  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth  are  to  be  blessed."  Hence  it 
is  evident  that  the  covenant  made  with  A- 
braham  required  absolute  holiness,  without 
which  not  one  of  its  blessings  could  be  enr 
joyed  in  a  covenant  way. 

The  same  truths  are  exhibited  in  the  re- 
newal of  that  covenant  with  Isaac  and  Ja- 
cob.   The  Lord  said  unto  Isaac,  "  I  will  be 


92 

with  thee  and  I  will  bless  thee,  &c.  And  I 
will  perform  the  oath  which  I  swear  unto 
Abraham  thy  father,  &c.  Because  that  A- 
braham  obeyed  my  voice  and  kept  my  charge, 
my  commandments,  my  statutes,  and  my 
laws/'  Gen.  xxvi.  3 — 5.  Again,  "  I  am  the 
God  of  Abraham  thy  father ;  fear  not  for  I 
am  with  thee,  and  will  bless  thee,  and  mul- 
tiply thy  seed  for  my  servant  Abraham's 
sake."  Ver.  24.  The  same  covenant  that 
was  made  with  Abraham  and  his  seed,  is 
iiow  renewed  with  Isaac  and  his  seed,  he 
having  become  personally  holy.  The 
same  remark  applies  to  the  case  of  Jacob, 
"  And  the  Lord  said,  I  am  the  Lord  God  of 
Abraham  thy  father,  and  the  God  of  Isaac, 
&c.  Behold  I  am  with  thee  and  will  keep 
thee,  &c.  for  I  will  not  leave  thee,  until  I 
have  done  that  which  I  have  spoken  to  thee 
of."  Gen.  xxviii.  13—15. 

In  all  these  instances,  the  same  covenant, 
containing  the  same  blessings  both  temporal 
and  spiritual,  is  ratified  to  the  seed  of  the  be- 
liever as  they  grow  up  ;  they  are  recogni- 
sed as  holy,  and  the  promise  of  the  covenant, 
in  their  turn,  is  extei  ded  to  their  children, 
who  are  to  be  sanctified  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  their  parents'  labours.  Every 
new  generation  that  enjoys  the  blessings, 
adds  consequence  to  the  covenant  ;  in  tes- 
timony of  which,  the  Lord  adds  the  name 
to  the  style,  by  which  he  reveals  himself  to 
the  church.  At  first  he  calls  himself  "  The 
God  of  Abraham  ;"  then,  "  The  God  of  A- 
braham  and  of  Isaac  ."  and  then,  "  The 


93 

God  of  Abraham  and  the  God  of  Isaac  and 
the  God  of  Jacob.     This"  he  declares  "  is 

MY  NAME  FOR  EVER,  AND  THIS  IS  MY  ME- 
MORIAL UNTO  ALL  GENERATIONS."  Exo.  ill. 
6,  15,  16. 

This  leads  me  to  notice  the  solemn  re- 
newal of  that  covenant  with  Moses,  in  be- 
half of  the  children  of  Israel  in  Egypt. — 
"  And  God  spake  unto  Moses  and  said  unto 
him,  I  am  the  Lord  ;  and  I  appeared  unto 
Abraham,  unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  by 
the  name  of  God  almighty,  but  by  my  name 
JEHOVAH,  was  I  not  known  to  them. 
And  I  have  also  established  my  covenant 
with  them  to  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan* 
&c.  And  I  have  remembered  my  covenant. 
Wherefore  say  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
I  am  the  Lord  and  /  will  take  you  to  me  for 
a  people,  and  I  will  be  to  you  a  God,  and  ye 
shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord  your  God — 
And  I  will  bring  you  in  unto  the  land,  &c." 
Exo.  vi.  2 — 8.  Herein  the  Lord  declares,  that 
he  had  established  with  them,  the  same  co- 
venant which  he  had  made  wilh  Abraham, 
Isaac  and  Jacob.  And  if  he  had  not  de- 
clared it  in  plain  words,  the  sameness  of  the 
promises  would  prove  the  identity  of  the 
covenant.  The  first  is  " /  will  take  you  to 
me  for  a  people,  and  I  will  be  to  you  a  God  fy 
and  the  other  is  u  to  bring  them  into  the 
land  of  promise."  With  respect  to  the  for- 
mer, you  may  asseit  as  before  that  it  means 
nothing  more  than  to  be  in  a  peculiar  sense 
their  "  temporal  King  and  Governor.''  As- 


94 

sertions  are  easily  made,  but  the  proof  is 
what  is  wanted.  I  have  asserted  that  "  it 
comprises  all  the  blessings  which  creatures 
can  desire,  or  God  bestow/'  and  in  proof  of 
thi  s,  I  have  shewn  you  that  the  same,  and  no 
other  promise  comprises  all  the  blessings 
which  God  bestows  on  the  Christian  church 
and  the  church  triumphant.  All  that  you 
can  reply  is,  "  to  them  that  can  believe  it, 
let  them  believe  it."  Besides  this,  there  are 
hundreds  of  texts  in  which  the  Lord  expres- 
ses the  relation  between  hirn  and  Israel,  by 
the  same  terms;  the  same  by  which  he  ex- 
presses his  relation  to  the  Christian  church. 
The  only  answer  you  can  give  to  this  is,  that 
they  were  a  very  wicked  people,  and  as  a  na- 
tion had  no  real  holiness  ;  hence  you  infer 
that  God  could  not  be  their  God,  nor  they, 
his  people,  in  the  same  sense,  as  the  Chris- 
tian church.  I  have  presented  you  with 
several  arguments  and  facts  to  prove  that 
the  moral  character  of  that  nation,  even  in 
the  worst  of  times,  was  not  near  so  bad  as 
you  represent:  and  J  have  shewn  you  that 
if  there  is  any  force  in  your  argument  on 
that  point,  it  would  operate  with  the  same 
propriety  against  calling  the  Christian  church 
"  the  people  of  God,"  because  there  are  un- 
worthy members  in  its  bosom.  But  still 
you  say  "It  can't  be  so."  Suppose,  then 
we  admit  what  you  seem  so  anxious  to  have 
conceded  :  that  the  nation  of  Israel  was  a 
very  base  and  wicked  people ;  that  as  a  com- 
munity they  neither  possessed  nor  professed 


95 

any  real  holiness;  and  consequently  that 
the  Lord,  in  promising  to  be  "  their  God," 
and  to  take  them  for  his  people,  "meant  no- 
thing more  than  that  he  would  have  them 
under  his  special  care,  and  be  "  their  king 
and  temporal  governor." 

Leb.  Well  sir,  admit  this,  and  it  is  all  we 
ask. 

Eug.  I  do,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument; 
but,  for  the  honour  of  my  God,  I  should 
tremble  to  admit  it  in  any  other  light,  for 
in  what  point  of  view  does  it  represent  the 
character  of  the  holy  Sovereign  of  the  uni- 
verse ?  He  takes  a  people  under  his  pecu- 
liar care — becomes  their  king — fosters  them 
with  paternal  kindness — bears  them  on  ea- 
gles' wings — keeps  them  in  the  hollow  of 
his  hand — preserves  them  as  the  apple  of  his 
eye — destroys  the  nations  that  oppose  them 
— puts  them  in  possession  of  a  pleasant  and 
fruitful  land — loads  them  with  his  favours  : 
thus  he  deals  with  them  for  the  space  of  two 
thousand  years;  and  yet  during  this  whole 
time,  they  are  neither  really  nor  professedly 
better  than  the  very  nations  which  he  de- 
stroyed before  them  :  yea,  the  very  holiness 
which  they  professed,  and  the  only  holiness 
which  his  covenant  with  them  required,  con- 
sisted in  acts  of  the  grossest  hypocrisy. — 
And  is  this  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  ?  Such 
indeed  is  the  character  which  your  system 
ascribes  to  him.  "O  my  soul,  come  not  thou 
into  their  secret :  unto  their  asssembly,  mine 
honour  he  not  thou  united'* 


96 

And  after  all  we  may  inquire  "  Why  doth 
lie  yet  find  fault,  for  who  halh  resisted  his 
will?"  If  the  Lord's  covenant  with  Israel 
required  nothing  more  than  typical  holiness, 
why  does  he  charge  them  with  hypocrisy  in 
the  performance  of  their  covenant  duties; 
and  condemn  them  because  their  hearts  were 
not  engaged  in  the  service  ?  "  They  did  flat- 
ter him  with  their  mouths;  and  they  lied  unto 
him  with  their  tongues.  For  their  heart  was 
not  right  with  him  :  neither  were  they  steadfast 
in  his  covenant."  Psal.  Ixxviii.  36,  37.  Why 
does  he  charge  them  with  having  "  broken 
his  covenant/'  by  admitting  the  " nncircum- 
cised  in  heart"  as  well  as  injlesh"  into  his 
sanctuary,  and  forbid  them  to  do  so  in  fu- 
ture ?  Ezek.  xliv.  7 — 9.  Why  does  he  de- 
mand of  the  wicked,  "  WThat  hast  thou  to  do 
to  declare  my  statutes,  or  that  thou  shouldst 
take  my  covenant  in  thy  mouth,  seeing  thou 
hatest  instruction,  and  castest  my  words  be- 
hind thee."  Psal.  1.  1 6, 1 7. " To  what  purpose 
is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices  unto  me? 
I  am  full  of  the  burnt  offerings  of  rams,  and 
the  fat  of  fed  beasts;  and  I  delight  not  in 
the  blood  of  bullocks,  or  of  lambs,  or  of  he- 
goats  ?  When  ye  come  to  appear  before 
me,  who  hath  required  this  at  .your  hands, 
to  tread  my  courts?  Bring  no  more  vain  ob- 
lations :  incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me; 
the  new  moons  and  sabbaths,  the  calling  of 
assemblies,  I  cannot  away  with:  it  is  iniqui- 
ty, even  the  solemn  meeting.  Your  new 
moons,  and  your  appointed  feasts,  my  soul 


97 

hateth;  they  are  a  trouble  unto  me:  I  am 
weary  to  bear  them."  Isa.  i.  11 — 14.  In  none 
of  these  cases  does  he  charge  them  with  o- 
mitting  any  of  the  external  rites  which  he 
had  instituted.  Nay,  he  acknowledges  that 
their  offerings  were  "  continually  before 
him."  Why  then  does  he  find  fault  if  typi- 
cal holiness  were  all  that  his  covenant  re- 
quired ? 

Let).  Oh!  he  found  fault  with  them  be- 
cause they  did  not  yield  obedience  to  that 
law,  which  is  "  obligatory  on  all  the  sub- 
jects of  his  moral  government,  whether  in 
heaven,  earth  or  hell ;"  and  to  which  they 
were  under  peculiar  obligations,  resulting 
from  their  superior  advantages. 

Eug.  That  does  not  remove  the  difficul- 
ty. The  question  is,  why  did  he  censure 
them  for  performing  their  ceremonial  wor- 
ship without  conformity  to  the  moral  law,  if 
the  performance  of  that  worship  did  not  re- 
quire real  holiness  of  heart?  If,  in  the  in- 
stitution of  these  rites,  the  Lord  required 
nothing  but  typical  holiness,  he  was  bound 
to  give  them  credit  on  that  score,  when  they 
observed  them  with  due  solemnity ;  though, 
in  another  point  of  view,  he  might  have  re- 
primanded them  for  their  want  of  real  holi- 
ness. But,  instead  of  this,  he  condemns 
them  for  offering  their  sacrifices  and  incense, 
calling  their  assemblies,  attending  their  so- 
lemn meetings,  and  taking  his  covenant  in 
their  mouth,  without  a  holy  heart;  and  on 
that  account  he  pronounces  it  all  "  iniquity, 

9 


98 

and  an  abomination  in  his  sight."  And  hence 
he  commands  them,  "Wash  ye,  make  you 
clean,  &c."  Not  typical  washing,  for  in  this 
they  had  not  been  deficient;  but  the  same 
as  when  he  commands  them  by  another  pro- 
phet, "  O  Jerusalem,  wash  thine  heart  jrom 
wickedness,  that  thou  may  est  be  saved"  Jer. 
iv.  14.  And  again,  "  Make  you  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit ;  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house 
of  Israel."  Compare  Jsa.  i.  16 — 20,  and  Eze- 
kiel,  xviil  29—32. 

Again,  if  nothing  but  typical  holiness 
were  required  by  God's  covenant,  why  did 
John  the  Baptist  and  our  Saviour  charge  the 
scribes  and  pharisees  with  hypocrisy,  and 
condemn  them  for  the  same  ?  They  were 
rigid  observers  of  the  ceremonial  Jaw,  and 
even  went  beyond  it:  and  if  they  could  not 
claim  a  reward  for  their  works  of  supereroga- 
tion, they  were  certainly  entitled  to  full 
credit  for  their  typical  holiness.  And  yet 
our  Saviour  addresses  them  just  as  the  pro- 
phets had  addressed  their  fathers;  condemns 
them  as  most  egregious  hypocrites,  and  as- 
sures them  that  "  they  shall  not  escape  the 
damnation  of  hell." 

Leb.  He  condemns  them  for  their  injus- 
tice and  wickedness,  while  they  professed 
to  be  just  and  righteous. 

Eug.  Very  true  :  they  professed  to  be 
"  the  people  of  God,"  and  yet  their  religion 
consisted  solely  in  ceremonial  observances, 
or  your  typical  holiness.  This  is  the  precise 
point  of  the  argument. 


99 

Leb.  But  Christ  had  come  to  change  the 
dispensation,  and  set  up  his  church,  in  view 
of  which  John  said  to  them,  "  Think  not  to 
say  within  yourselves,  we  have  Abraham  to 
our  father,  &c.  And  now  also  the  axe  is  laid 
unto  the  root  of  the  trees,  &c."  Mat.  iii.9,  ]0. 

JEvg.  And  pray,  what  does  this  differ  from 
the  declarations  of  the  ancient  prophets? — 
The  Lord  had  always  assured  them  that  their 
being  born  of  pious  parents  would  not  secure 
to  them  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  with- 
out personal  holiness;  that  disobedience 
would  cut  them  off  from  the  enjoyment  of 
the  promises  which  he  had  made  to  Abra- 
ham. Hence,  whenever  a  general  defec- 
tion took  place,  he  cast  them  out  of  the 
land,  or  chastised  them  with  judgments,  till 
"  their  uncircumcised  hearts  were  humbled." 
The  advent  of  the  Messiah  was  a  time  of 
the  most  general  apostacy  that  had  ever 
been  known  in  Judea  ;  and  it  was  the  season 
of  God's  judgments  upon  the  unbelieving 
part  of  that  nation.  He  had  borne  long 
with  them,  but  when  they  had  rejected  the 
hope  of  Israel,  and  crucified  tfie  Lord  of 
glory,  their  cup  was  filled,  and  they  were 
cast  out  of  his  sight.  Here  is  not  the  least 
intimation  of  a  change  in  the  constUulion  of 
the  church,  but  only  the  execution  of  judg- 
ment on  the  impenitent,  in  perfect  accord- 
ance with  the  ancient  threatening  which  he 
had  delivered  unto  them.  Read  the  xxvi/A 
chapter  of  Leviticus,  and  you  will  find  that 
they  were  to  be  cast  out  of  the  land  for  their 


100 

transgressions;  but  still  "the  covenant  of 
their  fathers'*  was  to  remain  inviolate,  and 
in  due  time  to  he  fulfilled.  "And  yet  for 
all  that,  when  they  he  in  the  land  of  their 
enemies,  I  will  not  cast  them  away;  neither 
will  I  abhor  them,  to  destroy  them  utterly 
and  to  break  my  covenant  with  them,  for  I 
am  the  Lord  thy  God.  But  I  will  for  their 
sakes  remember  the  covenant  of  their  an- 
cestors, whom  I  brought  forth  out  of  the 
land  of  Egypt  in  the  sight  of  the  heathen, 
that  1  might  be  their  God:  I  am  the  Lord.'* 
If  there  were  no  express  prophecies  direct- 
ly to  the  point,  this  declaration,  taken  in 
connexion  with  the  preservation  of  the  Jews 
as  a  separate  people  in  their  dispersion,  is 
sufficient  evidence  that  they  are  to  be  resto- 
red to  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  that  even  the 
temporal  blessings  of  the  covenant  of  Abra- 
ham are  to  be  enjoyed  by  his  seed  to  the  end 
of  time. 

Permit  me  now  to  resume  my  argument. 
In  the  third  month  after  the  emancipation  of 
Israel  from  Egypt,  they  were  brought  into 
the  wilderness  of  Sinai.  While  encamped 
before  the  mount,  Moses  ascended,  and  the 
Lord  gave  him  this  message  to  deliver  to 
the  children  of  Israel.  "  Now,  therefore, 
if  ye  will  obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep 
my  covenant,  then  ye  shall  be  a  peculiar  trea- 
sure unto  me  above  all  people  :  all  the  earth 
is  mine.  And  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  king- 
dom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  nation"  When 
this  communication  was  made  to  the  elders 


101 

and  congregation  of  Israel,  "  All  the  peo- 
ple answered  together  and  said,  All  that 
the  Lord  hath  spoken,  we  will  do"  Exo.  xix. 
5 — 8.  Can  any  Baptist  church  present  an  ex- 
ample of  a  more  solemn  act  of  covenanting 
with  God  ?  And  can  any  man  have  the  ef- 
frontery to  assert  that  the  people  promised 
nothing  but  a  shadow  of  holiness?  and  even 
that  God  himself  required  nothing  more  of 
them,  in  order  to  regard  them  as  his  peculiar 
people,  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  a  holy  w«- 
tion  ?  Then  he  may  with  the  same  proprie- 
ty, I  mean  impropriety,  assert  that  St.  Peter 
intends  nothing  more  when  he  applies  the 
same  terms  to  the  Christian  church.  "  Ye 
are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood,  a 
holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people ."  1  Pet.  ii.  9. 
But  ah !  here  is  the  difference :  this  latter 
passage  happens  to  be  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  "theOid  one  is  all  done  &f?ay."  How 
strange  that  your  ministers  should  ever 
preach  out  of  the  Old  Testament !  And 
when  they  do,  I  am  sure  their  sermons  ought 
to  be  mere  types  of  gospel  sermons  !  ! 

.But  suppose  we  take  a  passage  out  of  the 
Old  Testament :  "  And  the  Lord  spake  un- 
to Moses,  saying,  speak  unto  the  congrega- 
tion of  Israel,  and  say  unto  them,  Ye  shall 
be  holy,  for  I  the  Lord  thy  God  am  holy?' — 
Lev.  xix.  1.  Does  the  great  Jehovah  ap- 
pear here  clad  in  garments  of  typical  holi- 
ness, as  a  sample  of  the  holiness  which  Is- 
rael was  to  possess?     So  it  would  seem,  if 

nothing  but  typical  holiness  were  required^ 
9* 


102 

Leo.  O  no !  you  forget  the  distinction 
which  I  have  already  made.  We  acknow- 
ledge that  the  Lord  required  absolute  holi- 
ness of  them,  just  as  he  does  of  all  the  sub- 
jects of  his  moral  government,  whether  in 
heaven,  earth  or  hell ;  but  that  he  required 
only  typical  holiness  in  a  covenant  way.  In 
such  passages  as  the  last  you  mentioned,  we 
acknowledge  that  absolute  holiness  is  de- 
manded ;  but  it  was  on  the  ground  of  the 
universal  obligation  of  his  law. 

Eug.  This  is  indeed  a  precious  distinction 
for  your  system.  Il  is  what  I  recollect  when 
I  was  a  child,  we  used  to  call  "  a  whip  row." 
It  serves  a  most  excellent  purpose.  When 
a  text  requiring  holiness  is  mentioned,  your 
first  endeavour  is  to  shew  that  it  means  no- 
thing more  than  typical  holiness.  But  when 
one  is  presented  which  sets  that  gloss  at  de- 
fiance, you  immediately  resort  to  the  other 
expedient,  admit  that  it  is  real  holiness,  but 
deny  that  it  is  required  by  virtue  of  the  cov- 
enant. And  thus,  like  a  pendulum,  you  are 
constantly  oscillating  between  the  law  and 
the  covenant — between  realnnti  typical  holi- 
ness. This  is  a  just  representation  of  the 
conduct  of  your  denomination  in  managing 
the  whole  controversy.  But  you  will  ob- 
serve, Lebbeus,  that  your  doctrine  of  typi- 
cal holiness  not  only  destroys  the  moral  cha- 
racter of  God,  as  I  have  already  shewn,  but 
it  is  absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  univer- 
sal obligation  of  the  moral  law,  and  reduces 
the  ceremonial  law  to  the  exact  level  of  a-po- 


103 

pish  indulgence.  The  moral  law,  you  ac- 
knowledge, is  universal;  its  obligations  ex- 
tending to  all  the  conduct  of  "  all  the  sub- 
jects of  the  divine  government,  whether  in 
heaven,  earth  or  hell-"  If  so,  then  accord- 
ing to  your  doctrine  of  typical  holiness,  the 
Lord,  instead  of  requiring  more  of  Israel, 
by  enjoining  the  ceremonial  economy,  actu- 
ally required  less.  If  he  had  not  given  that 
law,  they  would  have  been  obliged  to  ren- 
der absolute  holiness  in  every  act  of  their 
lives.  But,  by  virtue  of  that  law,  which  re- 
quired mere  typical  holiness,  he  dispensed 
with  the  moral  law,  or  absolute  holiness,  in 
all  those  acts  which  were  ceremonial.  These 
they  were  permitted  to  perform  with  unho- 
ly hearts,  and  were  even  promised  a  rich 
reward  for  their  unhallowed  services.  Ac- 
cording to  this,  the  Lord  required  more  of 
the  heathen,  yea,  of  the  devils  in  hell,  than 
he  demanded  of  the  Jewish  nation.  Of  the 
former  he  requires  constant  and  absolute  ho- 
liness ;  but  of  the  latter  he  required  this,  on- 
ly when  they  were  not  engaged  in  religious 
duties.  When  they  performed  an  act  which 
had  no  immediate  connexion  with  religion, 
and,  therefore,  was  not  cognizable  by  the 
ceremonial  law,  they  were  bound,  in  com- 
mon with  "  all  other  subjects  of  the  divine 
government,  whether  in  heaven,  earth  or 
hell,"  to  exercise  real  holiness.  But  the  mo- 
ment they  entered  into  the  sanctuary,  or  ap- 
proached the  altar  of  the  Lord,  they  were 
released  from  that  obligation,  and  were  obli- 


104 

ged  to  render  mere  typical  holiness,  which 
they  could  do  with  unholy  hearts,  and  then 
claim  a  reward  for  their  unrighteousness. — 
To  say   that  the  Israelites  were  bound    by 
the    covenant  to  yield  nothing  more   than 
typical  holiness  in  their  religious  services, 
and  yet  that  in  the  same  acts,  absolute  holi- 
ness was  required  by  the   law,  does  not  al- 
ter the  case,  for  it  leads  to  the  same  result. 
That  the  law  is  the  foundation  of  all  moral 
obligation  is  as  true  in  one  age,  under  one 
dispensation,  and  in  one  part  of  Jehovah's 
dominions  as  another.     To  suppose   there- 
fore that  the  Lord  ever   made  a   covenant 
with  any  of  his  creatures,  and  promised  them 
a  reward,  even  of  temporal  blessings,    on 
condition  of  any  thing  short  of  the  require- 
ments of  his  law,  is  to  set  him  up  as  a  rewar- 
der  of  iniquity.     This  is  an  inevitable  con- 
sequence resulting  from  your  favourite  doc- 
trine.    With  these  views  of  the  subject,  it 
is  not  strange  that  your  people  should  con- 
sider "  many  things  in  the  Jewish  ritual  as 
pretty  well  adapted  to  please  the  carnally- 
minded  ;"  for  all  carnal  men  would  be  pleas- 
ed with  a  law  which  dispenses  with  absolute 
holiness,  and  requires   nothing  more  than 
what  they  can  perform  with  wicked  hearts. 
When  I  am  made  to  believe,  that  the  God 
of  Israel  required  this,  and  even  promised  a 
rich  reward  for  such  services,  that  moment 
I  shall  cease  to  worship  him. 

But  to  return.     You  will  observe,  that 
the  children  of  Israel  had  just  covenanted 


1G5 

in  the  mast  solemn  manner  "  to  do  all  that 
the  Lord  had  spoken."  He  had  not  called 
upon  them  to  make  a  new  covenant,  hut  to 
ratify  the  old  one.  "If  ye  will  obey  my 
voice  indeed,  and  keep  rny  covenant,  &c." 
This  covenant  had  from  its  first  institution, 
as  has  been  shewn,  required  real  holiness, 
and  recognised  all  who  were  embraced 
within  its  sacred  enclosure  as  professedly 
holy  ;  and  all  the  rites  which  had  been  or- 
dained on  that  foundation,  were  considered 
as  outward  expressions  of  real  holiness.  As 
the  time  had  now  arrived,  when  the  Lord 
was  about  to  establish  a  complete  and  per- 
manent mode  of  worship,  we  discover  a  sin- 
gular propriety  in  their  being  called  upoa 
in  a  solemn  manner  to  renew  that  covenant, 
Here  then  is  the  ground  of  all  the  statutes 
which  were  delivered  from  Mount  Sinai, 
Many  of  those  precepts  were  indeed  typi- 
cal— others  of  a  civil  or  political  nature,  and 
many  others  strictly  moral ;  but  all  these 
equally  regarded  the  mode  of  expressing 
that  holiness,  which  Israel  had  previously 
covenanted  to  exercise.  Hence  we  might 
as  well  infer,  that,  because  a  man  without 
holiness  of  heart,  can  now  profess  religion, 
be  baptized,  partake  of  the  Lord's  supper, 
attend  public  worship,  read  and  pray,  and 
perform  the  external  part  of  all  Christian 
duties,  therefore  real  holiness  is  not  neces- 
sary to  a  standing  in  the  Christian  church; 
as  to  deduce  this  inference  from  the  like  pre- 
mises, in  reference  to  the  Jewish  church.  The 


106 

logic  would  be  equal!)  unsound  in  both  cases. 
As  a  further  confitntation  ol  these  views, 
when  the  Lord  first  addressed  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel  from  Mount  Sinai,  the  first 
precepts  which  he  delivered,  was  the  moral 
law,  in  the  form  of  the  ten  commandments. 
This  he  laid  down  as  the  ha^is  of  all  the  re- 
quirements which  were  afterwards  deliver- 
ed. And  this,  as  well  all  the  other  statutes, 
the  people  promised  to  obey.  "  And  all 
the  people  saw  the  thunderings,  &c.  and  they 
said  to  Moses,  speak  thou  with  us  and  we 
will  hear;  but  let  not  God  speak  with  us 
lest  we  die."  Exo.  xx.  18,  19.  And  when,  in 
condescension  to  their  request,  the  Lord 
had  delivered  all  his  statutes  to  his  servant, 
"Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all  the 
words  of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  judgments  ; 
and  all  the  people  answered  with  one  voice 
and  said,  All  the  words  which  the  Lord  halh 
said,  trill  we  do.  And  Moses  wrote  all  the 
words  of  the  Lord,  and  rose  up  early  in  the 
morning,  and  budded  an  altar  under  the  hill, 
and  twelve  pillars,  according  to  the  twelve 
tribes  of  Israel.  And  he  sent  young  men 
of  the  children  of  Israel,  which  offered  burnt 
offerings  arid  sacrificed  peace  offerings  of 
oxen  unto  the  Lord.  And  Moses  took  half 
of  the  blood,  and  put  it  in  basons,  and  half  of 
the  blood  he  sprinkled  on  the  altar.  And 
he  took  the  book  of  the  covenant,  and  read  in 
the  audience  of  the  people  :  and  they  said, 
All  that  the  Lord  hath  said,  will  we  do,  and 
be  obedient.     And   Moses  took  the  bloody 


107 

and  sprinkled  it  on  the  people  and  said,  Be- 
hold the  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  the  L  rd 
hath  made  with  yon,  concerning  all  these 
words."  Exo.  xxiv.  3 — 8.  And  now,  Lebbe- 
us,  is  all  this  a  solemn  farce,  in  which  the  God 
of  Israel  bore  so  conspicuous  a  part  ?  For 
immediately  after  this,  M  Moses  and  Aaron, 
Nadab  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the  elders 
of  Israel,  went  up  and  they  saw  the  God  of 
Israel :  and  there  was  under  his  feet  as  it 
were  a  paved  work  of  a  sapphire-stone,  and 
as  it  were  the  body  of  heaven  in  his  clear- 
ness." Ver.  9,  10.  Did  the  Israelites,  in 
all  this  solemn  act  of  covenanting,  make 
a  mental  reservation  with  respect  to  the 
moral  law  ?  And  was  God  so  well  pleased 
with  their  hypocrisy  and  falsehood  (for  they 
had  previously  promised  to  keep  those  com- 
mandments) that  he  condescended  to  mani- 
fest himself  to  them  in  all  his  glory  ? — Leb- 
beus,  the  bare  inquiry  makes  me  tremble. 
What  then  must  that  system  be,  which 
makes  the  impious  inquiry  needful  ?  Or  did 
the  moral  law  itself  require  nothing  more, 
under  that  dispensation,  than  typical  holi- 
ness? (Was  their  sabbath  amon^  other  things 
a  mere  type  of  a  Baptist  sabbath  ?)  No !  Our 
Saviour  declared  the  import  of  the  moral 
law.  "  Hear,  O  Israel,  The  Lord  our  G*>d 
is  one  Lord.  And  thou  shalt  love  the  Lord 
thy  God  with  all  thu  heart,  and  with  all  thy 
soul,  and  with  all  thy  wind,  and  with  all  thy 
strength.  And  thou  shalt  love  thy  neighbour 
as  thyself"     But  perhaps,  he  gave  this  as  a 


108 

new  interpretation  of  the  ten  command- 
ments, peculiar  to  gospel  times.  No  !  It  is 
the  same  which  the  Lord  had  previously  de- 
livered to  Israel,  and  Christ  quotes  the 
words,  precisely  from  the  law  of  Moses. 
Comp.  Mar.  xii.  29,  31.  Deut.  vi.  4,  5.  and 
Lev.  xix.  18.* 

Passing  over  a  vast  deal  of  testimony  to 
the  same  effect,  permit  me  now  to  direct 
your  attention,  to  the  book  of  Deuterono- 
my. This  book  consists  of  a  recapitulation 
of  sundry  precepts,  which  Moses  made  to 
Israel  in  the  last  month  of  his  life,  accom- 
panied with  such  exhortations,  promises  and 
threatenings,as  the  Lord  directed  him  to  give 
to  the  people  at  his  decease.  Let  me  re- 
quest you,  Lebbeus,  to  sit  down  at  your  lei- 
sure, and  read  it,  as  well  as  the  whole  of  the 
Old  Testament  with  serious  and  candid  at- 
tention; and  I  believe  you  will  be  amply- 
repaid  for  your  labour.  But  I  cannot  for- 
bear, at  the  present  moment,  to  introduce 
some  portions  of  this  book.  In  the  first 
place,  let  us  read  the  5th  and  6th  Chapters. 
[The  reader  is  requested  to  turn  to  these  chap- 
ters and  read  them  attentively  before  he  pro- 
ceeds any  further.^     Here  Moses  assembles 

*  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  same  method  of  communi- 
cating divine  grace  from  generation  to  generation,  which  was 
established  in  the  original  covenant,  is  distinctly  recognized  in 
the  decalogue.  "Fori  the  Lord  thy  God  am  a  jealous  God, 
visiting  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the  children,  unto  the 
third  and  fourth  generation  of  them  that  hate  me ;  and  shewing 
mercy  unto  thousands  of  them  that  love  me  and  keep  my  com- 
mandments." That  is,  "  unto  thousands  of  generations  of  them 
that  love  him."  Hence  he  is  said  to  have  "  commanded  his  cov- 
enant" and  "  to  keep  it  to  a  thousand  generations."  Deut.  vii.  9. 
1  Chron.  xvi.  15.  Psal.  cv.  8—10. 


109 

all  Israel,  and  bids  them  hear  the  statutes 
and  judgments  of  the  Lord.  He  reminds 
them  of  the  solemn  covenant  which  they  had 
made  with  the  Lord  in  Horeb.  A  covenant, 
different  from  that  which  he  had  previously 
made  with  their  fathers,  in  these  two  res- 
pects, as  to  the  manner,  and  as  to  thejorm. 
The  Lord  spake  to  them  face  to  face,  out 
of  the  midst  of  the  fire,  and  in  the  form  of 
the  ten  commandments.  The  object  of  the 
allusion,  was  evidently,  to  make  them  feel 
their  superior  obligations  to  obedience,  re- 
sulting from  the  vast  increase  of  light  which 
they  then  enjoyed.  Moses  then  rehearses  the 
ten  commandments,  and  reminds  them  of 
the  tenor  of  which  they  were  the  subjects 
when  they  beheld  the  awful  displays  of  di- 
vine Majesty,  and  of  their  solemn  engage- 
ment "  to  hear  and  do"  all  that  the  Lord 
should  say.  He  then  adds,  "  Ye  shall  ob- 
serve to  do,  therefore,  as  the  Lord  your  God 
hath  commanded  you:  you  shall  not  turn  a- 
side  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left.  You  shall 
walk  in  all  the  ways  which  the  Lord  your 
God  hath  commanded  you,  that  ye  may  live, 
and  that  it  may  be  well  with  you,  and  that 
ye  may  prolong  your  days  in  the  land  which 
ye  shall  possess."  He  then  proceeds  to  ex- 
plain the  import  of  the  divine  requirements, 
the  amount  of  which  is  "  to  love  the  Lord 
their  God  with  all  their  heart" — prescribes 
the  means  of  perpetuating  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant,  viz.  by  teaching  their  children 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord  diligently, 

10 


no 

familiarly  and  constantly — cautions  them  a- 
gainst  being  led  astray,  by  the  idolatrous 
examples  of  tie  surrounding  nations,  remin- 
ding them  that  "  the  Lord  their  God  is  a  jeal- 
ous God,"  and  then  again  enjoin?,  as  a  sub- 
ject of  the  first  importance,  the  faithful  in- 
struction of  their  children,  in  order  that  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant  might  descend, 
according  to  divine  constitution,  to  their 
posterity.  Now,  where  is  the  man  who  has 
the  presumption  to  assert,  that  "  to  walk  in 
all  the  ways  of  the  Lord  their  God,  without 
turning  aside  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the 
left — to  observe  all  his  commandments  and 
statutes  and  judgments — to  fear  the  Lord 
their  God — to  love  him  with  all  their  heart, 
soul,  mind  and  strength — to  serve  him  and 
swear  by  his  name — to  teach  the  same  dili- 
gently to  their  children,  going  out  and  com- 
ing in,  lying  down  and  rising  up,  and  that 
this  should  be  their  righteousness,"  means 
nothing  more  than  typical  holiness]  Here, 
Lebbeus,  is  no  room  for  your  convenient  dis- 
tinction between  law  and  covenant.  For  Mo- 
^es  declares  at  the  outset,  that  these  duties 
result  from  the  covenant  of  Horeb,  and  they 
are  enjoined,  and  obedience  required  no  less 
than  six  times  in  these  two  chapters,  as  the 
express  condition  of  their  continuing  to  en- 
joy the  land  of  promise. 

Lei.  But  the  land  of  Canaan  was  only  a 
type  of  heaven. 

Eug.  Very  true;  and  in  this  light  no  doubt 
the  Lord  intended  they  should  regard  it. — 


Ill 

And  therefore,  we  see  the  reason  why  he  re- 
quired real  holiness  that  they  might  not 
only  enjoy  his  blessing  on  earth,  but  what 
is  infinitely  more  desirable,  his  favour  in 
heaven.  Hence  this  idea  instead  of  inval- 
idating, confirms  my  argument. — The  same 
sentiments  sanctioned  by  the  same  promi- 
ses and  threatenings,  run  through  this  book. 
To  quote  them  all  would  be  to  repeat  the 
whole  book.  I  must  therefore  renew  my  re- 
quest that  you  will  read  it,  without  delay, 
with  devout  attention,  and  with  your  eye  to 
this  subject.  But,  before  I  proceed  further, 
I  must  direct  you  to  three  notable  institu- 
tions, recorded  in  this  book  ;  by  which  the 
Lord  designed  to  perpetuate  religion  in  Is- 
rael. 

The  first  is,  that  "  their  kino;  should  write 
a  copy  of  this  law  in  a  book,  out  of  that 
which  is  before  the  priests,  the  Levites,  and 
keep  it  by  him,  and  read  therein  all  the  days 
of  his  life  ;  that  he  might  learn  to  fear  the 
Lord  his  God,  to  keep  all  the  words  of  this 
law  and  these  statutes  to  do  them;  that  he 
might  prolong  his  days  in  his  kingdom,  and 
transmit  the  same  blessings  to  his  children." 
Fid.  Deut.  xvii.  18—20. 

The  second  is,  that  when  they  passed  over 
Jordan,  "they  should  set  up  in  Mount  Ebal 
great  stones,  and  phtister  them  with  plaister, 
and  write  upon  them,  very  plainly,  all  the 
words  of  this  law,  and  erect  an  altar  there, 
that  all  the  people,  when  they  came  to  wor- 
ship before  God,  might  see  for  themselves, 


112 

what  the  Lord  required  at  their  hands."— 
Vid.  chap,  xxvii.  1 — 10. 

The  third,  and  if  possible,  the  most  re- 
markable of  all  was,  "  that  at  the  end  of  ev- 
ery seven  years,  in  the  solemnity  of  the 
year  of  release,  in  the  feast  of  tabernacles 
when  all  Israel  was  assembled  before  the 
Lord  their  God,  this  law  was  to  be  read  in 
the  hearing  of  all  the  people,  men,  women 
and  children,  and  the  stranger  within  their 
gates;  that  they  might  hear,  and  that  they 
might  learn,  and  fear  the  Lord  their  God, 
and  observe  to  do  all  the  words  of  this  law  : 
and  that  their  children,  which  had  not  known, 
wight  hear  and  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  their 
God,  and  continue  to  enjoy  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant."  Vid.  chapter  xxxi.  9 — 13. 
Here  an  opportunity  was  presented,  once 
in  seven  years,  for  a  solemn  renewal  of 
covenant  with  those,  who  had  previously 
taken  it  upon  them ;  and  for  the  reception 
of  their  children,  as  they  arrived  at  adult 
years.*  In  reference  to  such  a  solemn 
scene,  well  might  Moses  say,  "  This  day, 
the  Lord  thy  God  hath  commanded  thee,  to 
do  these  statutes  and  judgments :  thou  shalt 

*  The  Jewish  rabbins  say,  that  at  the  age  of  twelve  or  thirteen 
years,  their  children  were  obliged  to  perform  all  the  duties  of 
adult  members,  and  were  then  denominated  "  sons  of  the  com- 
mandment,'* having  been  previously  distinguished  as  "  the  chil- 
dren of  the  covenant."  These  obligations  were  evidently  impli- 
ed in  the  offer  of  a  personal  sacrifice,  but  they  were  distinctly 
expressed  in  this  septennial  act  of  covenanting.  And  this  prac- 
tice appears  to  be  plainly  recognised  by  the  sacred  Evangelist, 
where  he  observes,  that  when  our  Saviour  was  tivelve  years  old, 
bis  parents  took  him  up  to  Jerusalem  "  after  the  cugtom  of  the 
feait" 


113 

therefore  keep  and  do  them,  with  all  thine  heart 
and  with  all  thy  soul.  Thou  ha*t  avouch- 
ed the  Lord,  this  day,  to  be  thy  God  ;  and 
to  walk  in  his  ways,  and  to  keep  his  statutes 
and  his  commandments,  and  his  judgments, 
and  to  hearken  unto  his  voice.    And  the  Lord 

HATH  AVOUCHED  THEE,    THIS  DAY,    TO  BE  HIS 

peculiar  people,  as  he  hath  promised  thee  ; 
and  that  thou  shouldst  keep  all  his  command- 
ments,  and  to  make  thee  high,  above  all  na- 
tions, which  he  hath  made,  in  praise,  and  in 
name,  and  in  honour,  and  that  thou  ma  vest 

BE  A  HOLY  PEOPLE  UNTO  THE  LORD  THY  GoD, 

as  he  hath  spoken.'9     Deut.  xxvi.  16 — 19. 

If  a  more  solemn  mode  of  covenanting  is 
practised — if  more  comprehensive  vows  are 
required — if  more  powerful  means  are  used 
— if  more  gracious  promises  are  enjoyed,  at 
the  present  day,  in  any  portion  of  the  church 
of  God,  for  the  preservation  and  promotion 
of  "  pure  and  undefiled  religion,"  I  know 
not  where  to  look  for  them :  sure  I  am,  they 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Baptist  church. 

I  will  now  direct  your  attention,  to  that 
solemn  renewal  of  covenant,  which  Joshua 
caused  the  children  of  Israel  to  make,  just 
before  his  death.  As  the  event  approach- 
ed, that  good  man,  after  the  example  of  Mo- 
ses, assembled  all  Israel  together  in  She- 
chem.  And  after  reminding  them  of  all  the 
wonders  which  God  had  wrought  for  them, 
and  exhorting  them  "  to  keep  and  to  do  all 
that  Moses  had  commanded  without  turning 
aside  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left/'  re- 
10* 


114 

minding  them  that  "  to  love  the  Lord  their 
God"  was  the  amount  of  the  whole ;  he  call- 
ed upon  them  to  renew  their  covenant. — 
And  in  the  very  commencement  of  this  so- 
lemn transaction,  he  tells  them  plainly,  that 
it  is  not  mere  outside  religion,  or  a  shadow 
of  holiness,  which  they  are  to  profess,  but 
the  religion  of  the  heart.  "  Now,  therefore, 
fear  the  Lord,  and!,  serve  him  in  sincerity  and 
in  truth,  &c."  And  upon  their  promising 
to  do  so,  he  declares  to  them,  in  the  most 
explicit  terms,  that  they  cannot  serve  God 
acceptably,  with  impenitent  and  wicked 
hearts.  "  Ye  cannot  serve  the  Lord,  for  he 
is  a  holy  God ;  he  is  a  jealous  God,  &c." — 
And  the  people  answered,  "  The  Lord  our 
God  will  we  serve,  and  his  voice  will  we  obey" 
So  Joshua  made  a  covenant  with  the  peo- 
ple, and  wrote  it  in  the  book  of  the  law,  and 
took  a  great  stone  and  set  it  up  as  a  witness 
to  the  people.  These  solemn  duties,  like 
all  the  rest  which  we  have  noticed,  were  en- 
joined as  the  condition  of  their  enjoying  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant.  "  And  Israel 
served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua,  and 
all  the  days  of  the  elders,  that  outlived 
Joshua."     Vid.  Josh,  xxiii.  and  xxiv. 

Time  would  fail  me,  to  take  particular 
notice  of  similar  transactions,  which  took 
place  in  the  days  of  Samuel,  and  David,  and 
Solomon,  and  Elijah,  and  Hezekiah,  and 
Josiah,  and  other  pious  prophets  and  kings. 
Examine  these  instances  for  yourself,  and 
you  will  find  that  all  the  judgments  which 


115 

God  inflicted  upon  his  ancient  people,  were 
brought  upon  them  for  their  violation  of 
that  covenant,  which  God  made  with  their 
fathers,  and  renewed  with  so  much  solemni- 
ty; and  that,  whenever  they  renewed  cove- 
nant, they  promised  the  same  absolute  holi- 
ness, which  their  fathers  professed  ; — "  ta 
walk  after  the  Lord,  and  to  keep  his  com- 
mandments, and  his  testimonies,  and  his  sta- 
tutes, with  all  their  heart  and  all  their  soul, 
to  perform  the  words  of  this  covenant,  thai 
were  written  in  this  book."    2  Kings,  xxiii.  3.. 

The  book  of  Psalms  abounds  with  evi- 
dence to  the  same  point.  Let  me  request  youi 
to  read  the  Ixxviii//*  Psalm,  with  particular 
attention.  Jt  contains  a  summary  of  Goil's 
dealing  with  Israel,  and  affords  the  most  ex- 
plicit testimony  that  absolute  holiness  was  re- 
quired by  the  covenant,  and  was  to  be  trans-* 
mitted  in  a  covenant  way.  "  For  he  establish- 
ed a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appointed  a  law 
in  Israel,wh'ch  he  commanded  our J others,  that 
they  should  make  than  known  to  their  children; 
that  the  generation  to  come  might  know  them, 
even  the  children  which  should  be  born,  ?vho 
should  arise  and  declare  them  to  their  chil- 
dren ;  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in  God, 
and  not  forget  the  works  of  God,  but  keep  his 
commandments."  Of  those  who  were  over- 
thrown, it  is  declared  that  "  they  kept  not 
the  covenant  of  God  and  refused  to  walk  in 
his  law" — that  they  were  guilty  of  hypocri- 
sy in  taking  this  covenant  on  their  tongues, 
because   "  their  hearts  were  not  right  with 


116 

him :"  and  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kin- 
dled against  them  "  because  they  believed  not 
in  God  and  trusted  not  in  his  salvation" 

Now,  Lebbeus,  in  view  of  all  this  evi- 
dence, for  me  to  assert  that  God's  covenant 
with  Israel  required  nothing  more  than  typ- 
ical holiness,  would  be,  as  much  worse  than 
common  falsehood,  as  to  give  the  lie  to  (lie 
God  of  truth.  As  much  as  I  value  my 
own  personal  ease,  I  would  rather  lose  my 
right  hand,  than  be  guilty  of  the  assertion. 

Lei),  But  pray  tell  me,  Eugenius,  is  there 
any  evidence  that  faith  and  repentance  were 
required  as  a  condition  of  that  covenant? 

Eug.  If  I  have  established  the  point  that 
real  holiness  was  requited  by  the  covenant, 
then  this  follows  of  course  ;  for  there  is  on- 
ly one  way  for  sinners  to  become  holy,  and 
that  is  by  repentance  toward  God  and  faith 
in  Christ.  But  I  have  no  inclination  to  rest 
the  matter  here.  Positive  testimony  may 
be  adduced,  directly  to  the  point. 

The  prominent  feature,  and  the  founda- 
tion of  the  whole  covenant,  as  you  have 
seen,  was  the  promise  of  a  Saviour.  "  And 
in  thee  shall  all  the  families  of  the  earth  be 
blessed.  And  Abraham  believed  in  the 
Lord,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righ- 
teousness." He  not  only  believed  that  he 
should  have  a  son,  who  through  his  fidelity 
should  be  the  heir  of  the  promise,  and  in- 
herit immortal  glory  ;  but  he  believed,  that 
he  should  have  another  seed,  "in  ivhom  all 
nations  shoidd  be  blessed"     This  promise 


117 

was  the  foundation  of  all  his  hopes  both  for 
himself  and  his  posterity.  Hence,  our  Lord 
declares,  "  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my  day; 
and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad."  Joh.  viii.  56. 
And  Si.  Paul  says,  "  God  preached  the  gos- 
pel to  Abraham,  say i nor,  (n  thee  shall  all  na- 
tions be  blessed.'"  Gal.  iii.  3.  The  same 
covenant,  with  the  same  promise  more  fully 
explained,  I  have  already  shewn,  was  re- 
newed to  Isaac  and  to  Jacob.  Hence,  the 
repeated  declaration  of  Jehovah  to  Israel, 
"I  am  the  God  of  Abraham  and  the  God 
of  Isaac  and  the  God  of  Jacob — this  is  my 
name  for  ever  and  this  is  my  memorial  un- 
to all  generations."  Exo.  iii.  6,  15,  16. — 
And  hence  also,  he  calls  the  covenant  that 
subsisted  between  him  and  Israel,  "  the  cov- 
enant with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob." — 
Exo.  ii.  24.  Lev.  xxvi.  42.  We  are  assu- 
red by  our  Saviour,  that  Abraham,  Isaac 
and  Jacob  are  in  the  kingdom  of  God. — 
They  never  possessed  the  land  of  promise; 
they  were  only  sojourners  there ;  but  by 
faith  in  Christ,  they  have  gone  to  enjoy  the 
heavenly  inheritance.  But  did  the  Lord, 
when  he  renewed  this  covenant  with  Moses 
and  the  children  of  Israel,  strike  out  the 
fundamental  promise,  or  excuse  them  from 
the  exercise  of  faith  in  it?  I  know  your  peo- 
ple endeavour  to  make  it  out,  that  the  pos- 
session of  Canaan,  was  the  summit  of  their 
expectations:  but  we  know,  it  was  far  oth- 
erwise. Even  after  they  were  established 
in  the  promised  land,  this  promise  of  the 


118 

covenant  was  cherished  with  undiminished 
fervour;  and  the  same  intense  desire  to  see 
its  accomplishment,  universally  prevailed. 
And  tiiis  was  the  principal  reason,  why  bar- 
renness was  considered,  by  the  Israelites, 
especially  the  female  part,  as  a  dreadful 
curse.  Will  your  candour  then  permit  you 
to  believe,  that  a  man  would  have  been  tol- 
erated in  that  community  who  denied  the 
hope  of  Israel  1  Would  he  not  have  been 
considered  worse  than  a  heathen  or  publi- 
can ? — With  such  ardent  desire  was  that 
promise  cherished,  even  in  seasons  of  the 
greatest  apostacy,  that  when  John  the  Bap- 
tist proclaimed  the  near  approach  of  its  ful- 
filment, the  whole  nation  was  in  a  ferment: 
and  their  impatience  was  so  great,  that  they 
seemed  unwilling  to  wait  a  moment,  but 
were  ready  to  storm  heaven  itself  and  bring 
the  Messiah  down  by  force.  Yid.  Mat.  xi.  12. 
Again,  what  was  the  meaning  of  "the  blood 
of  the  covenant"  of  which  we  read  so  much, 
and  which  was  sprinkled  on  the  people  ? — 
What  was  the  object  of  all  the  victims,  whose 
blood  was  shed,  and  whose  flesh  was  daily 
offered  in  sacrifice  to  God  ?  Did  not  these 
point,  with  singular  significance,  to  "  the 
Lamb  of  God  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of 
the  world?"  What  was  the  import  of  their 
sin-offerings,  which  were  accompanied  with 
humble  confession  of  sin  ?  Was  not  the 
death  of  the  victim  an  acknowledgement  of 
their  desert  of  punishment,  and  that  without 
the  shedding  of  blood,  there  could  be  no 


119 

remission?  Or,  if  all  these  things  were  in- 
tended by  them,  yet,  did  the  Lord  excuse 
the  people  from  understanding  their  import? 
Suppose  there  were  some,  and  at  times 
many,  who  did  not  understand  and  rightly 
perform  religious  rites,  did  this  destroy  their 
design  or  annul  the  divine  requirements? — 
But  if  ceremonial  observances  did  not  re- 
quire faith,  how  will  you  dispose  of  express 
precepts?  Read  Deut.  x  and  xi  chapters. 
Here  again,  they  are  required  "to  fear  the 
Lord  their  God,  to  walk  in  all  his  ways — 
to  love  and  serve  him  with  all  the  heart  and 
soul — to  keep  all  his  commandments  and 
statutes — to  circumcise  the  foreskin  of  their 
heart — to  lay  up  the  divine  precepts  in  their 
hearts  and  souls,  and  to  teach  them  to  their 
children,  and  to  choose  between  the  bles- 
sing and  the  curse,"  and  all  this,  on  express 
condition  of  inheriting  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant.  But  do  these  precepts  require 
neither  repentance,  nor  faith,  nor  a  holy 
heart?  Turn  to  the  xxix  and  xxx  chapters 
of  the  same  book  and  read  the  last  address 
of  the  servant  of  God  to  his  people.  There 
after  once  more  recapitulating  the  wonders 
which  God  had  wrought  for  them,  he  assem- 
bles the  whole  congregation,  "the  captains 
of  the  tribes  and  elders  of  the  people,  all 
the  men  of  Israel,  with  their  wives  and  little 
ones,  and  the  stranger  within  the  camp,  from 
the  hewer  of  wood  to  the  drawer  of  water." 
And  for  what?  "  That  thou  shovldsl  enter  in- 
to covenant  with  the  Lord  thy  God>  and  into 


120 

his  oath,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  mdketh 
with  thee  this  day :  That  he  may  establish 
thee  to-day  for  a  people  unto  himself  akd 

THAT    HE    MAY    BE    UNTO    THEE    A  GOD    US    he 

haih  said  unto  thee,  and  as  he  hath  sworn  un- 
to thy  fathers,  to  Abraham  to  Isaac  and  to 
Jacob"  And  thus,  alter  solemnly  renew- 
ing covenant,  the  Lord  once  more  gracious- 
ly promised  "to  circumcise  their  hearts  and 
the  heart  of  their  seed  to  love  the  Lord  their 
God,  with  all  their  heart  and  with  all  their 
soul,"  that  they  might  live  and  enjoy  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant.  And  as  an  en- 
couragement to  obedience  and  faithfulness, 
he  declares  that  what  he  requires  "  is  not 
hidden  from  them,  nor  far  off,  but  the  word 
is  nigh  unto  thee,  in  thy  mouth  and  in  thy 
heart,  that  thou  mayest  do  it."  These  words 
St.  Paul  quotes  and  declares,  that  they  have 
respect  to  the  righteousness  of  faith.  Com- 
pare Deut.  xxx.  11 — 14.  and  Rom.  x.  5 — 9. 
And  this  also,  the  Lord  required  of  them, 
as  a  condition  of  the  covenant. 

This  truth  is,  not  only  frequently  impli- 
ed, but  plainly  asserted,  in  the  apostolic 
writings.  In  the  xi.  of  Romans,  Paul  de- 
clares that  the  Jews  "  were  broken  off  because 
of  unbelief"  I  shall  have  occasion  to  call 
your  attention  to  this  chapter,  in  a  subse- 
quent part  of  the  discussion;  I  shall  there- 
fore only  remark  here,  that  they  were  bro- 
ken off  from  that,  into  which  the  Gentiles 
are  grafted.  That  this  was  not  the  Chris- 
tian church,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the 


321 

unbelieving  Jews  never  had  a  standing  in 
that  cnurch.  They  were  broken  off  from 
their  own  olive  tree,  of  which  they  were  na- 
tural branches.  And  if  they  were  "  broken 
off,  because  of  unbelief  "  it  is  evident  that 
faith  was  requisite  to  a  standing  in  that 
church.— Again,  St.  Paul  declares,  that  the 
Israelites  "did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual 
meat,  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual 
drink,  for  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  rock 
that  followed  them  and  that  rock  was  Christ." 
1  Cor.  x.  3,  4.  This  was  their  profession, 
though  many  of  them  were  insincere ;  and 
therefore  he  overthrew  them  in  the  wilder- 
ness, "  because  they  believed  not  in  God,  and 
trusted  not  in  his  salvation"  Hence  the  a- 
postle  asserts  that  "they  tempted  Christ," 
and  from  their  example,  he  warns  the  Chris- 
tian church  against  the  same  sin. 

In  writing  to  the  Hebrews  he  recurs  to 
the  same  facts,  and  asserts,  that  it  was  "to 
those  that  believed  not"  that  "  the  Lord  s?vare, 
they  should  not  enter  into  his  rest;"  and  that 
"  they  entered  not  in9  because  of  unbelief" — 
At  the  same  time  he  informs  us,  what  was  the 
nature  of  this  unbelief:  viz.  unbelief  of  the 
gospel  "  For  unto  us  was  the  gospel  preach- 
ed as  well  as  unto  them,  but  the  word  preach- 
ed did  not  profit  them,  not  being  mixed  with 
faith  in  them  that  heard  it."  And  in  his  whole 
treatment  of  this  subject,  he  evidently  re- 
gards the  rest  which  was  promised  them,  as 
the  same  which  is  held  forth  to  the  Christian 
church  ;  and  imputes  their  failure  of  inheri- 
Jl 


122 

ting  the  promise,  to  the  want  of  faith. — 
And  finally,  that  faith  in  Christ  was  requi- 
red and  professed  under  that  dispensation, 
is  evident  from  what  the  apostle  says  of  Mo- 
ses, in  the  xi//i  chapter  of  this  Epistle  :  "  By 
faith  Moses,  when  he  came  to  years,  refu- 
sed to  be  called  the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daugh- 
ter; choosing  rather  to  suffer  affliction  with 
the  people  of  God,  than  to  enjoy  the  plea- 
sures of  sin  for  a  season ;  esteeming  the  re- 
proach of  Christ  greater  riches  than  the 
treasures  in  Egypt."  How  could  Moses, 
in  suffering  affliction  with  Israel,  be  said  to 
suffer  with  "  the  people  of  God?"  and  to  en- 
dure "  the  reproach  of  Christ ,"  if  they  were 
not,  by  profession,  "the people  of  Gody"  and 
"  believers  in  Christ  /" 

It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  testimony 
to  this  point,  but  it  is  needless.  "  If  you  will 
not  believe  Moses  and  the  prophets,"  nor 
Christ  and  his  apostles, "  neither  will  you  be 
persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the  dead." 

Lei).  But  there  is  no  evidence,  that  the 
Israelites  were  required  to  profess  these 
things,  in  order  to  enter  into  the  church. — 
On  the  contrary,  as  I  have  already  observ- 
ed, they  were  born  into  the  church,  and 
grew  up  members  of  it,  without  making 
any  personal  profession. 

Eug.  And  I  have  already  observed,  that 
they  were  born  into  the  church,  in  the  same 
sense,  in  which  the  children  of  believers  are 
now7  born  into  the  church.  But  it  is  abund- 
antly evident,  that  they  were  not  consider- 


123 

ed,  n<5  personally  entitled  to  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant,  until  they  had,  by  some  act 
of  their  own,  taken  the  obligations  of  that 
covenant  upon  themselves.  To  atford  them 
such  an  opportunity,  the  Lord  commanded, 
that  the  covenant  should  be  publicly  re- 
newed every  seventh  year,  as  has  been  al- 
ready shewn,  for  the  express  purpose  of 
having  their  children  enter  into  its  bonds. 
And  not  only  at  that  time,  but  whenever  a 
young  Israelite  came  forward  to  the  altar 
of  the  Lord,  to  offer  a  personal  sacrifice, 
this  act,  was  justly  considered,  as  a  profes- 
sion of  his  faith,  and  an  acknowledgment 
of  God's  covenant.  And  in  this  light,  the 
Lord  regarded  it;  for  he  speaks  of  such,  as 
having  "  made  a  covenant  with  him  by  sa- 
crifice/' And  that  real  holiness  was  requi- 
red in  that  act,  is  evident  from  the  declara- 
tion "  Unto  the  wicked  God  saith,  what  hast 
thou  to  do  to  declare  my  statutes,  or  that 
thou  shouldst  take  my  covenant  in  thy  mouth, 
&c."     Psalm  1.  5—16. 

Eeb.  But  the  constitution  of  the  Jewish, 
was  "totally  different"  from  that  of  the 
gospel  church;  as  it  had  a  direct  tendency 
to  blend  saints  and  sinners,  without  contain- 
ing in  itself  the  means  of  separating  the 
morally  clean,  from  the  unclean." 

Eug.  Then  the  Lord  was,  indeed,  a  very 
"  hard  master,"  when  he  censured  the  priests 
for  putting  "wo  difference  between  the  holy 
and  profane — the  clean  and  the  unclean" — 
Ezek.  xxiu  26.     He  required  them  to  do 


124 

this,  and  yet,  if  your  assertion  is  true,  he 
had  furnished  them  with  no  means  for  doing 
it.  The  constitution  which  he  had  given 
them,  "had  a  direct  tendency  to  blend  saints 
and  sinners"  and  yet  he  censures  them,fornot 
separating  them.  This  is  surely  worse  than 
to  require  "  bricks  without  straw."  But  is 
it  a  fact  that  the  original  constitution  of  the 
church  "contained  no  means  of  separating 
the  morally  clean  from  the  unclean?"  No  !  It 
furnished  as  effectual  provision  for  the  main^ 
tenance  of  discipline,  as  there  is  under  the 
present  dispensation*  The  same  duties  of 
morality, benevolence  and  piety  were  requi- 
red, and  the  same  sins  were  forbidden.  And 
when  any  one  transgressed,  he  was  required 
to  bring  a  sin  offering  to  the  altar,  to  make 
confession  of  his  sin  and  seek  pardon  at  the 
Land  of  the  Lord.  But  the  obstinate  and 
incorrigible  offender  was  condemned  to  be 
"  cut  off''  from  God's  people.  You  may 
assert,  that  this  had  respect  solely  to  cere- 
monial transgressions;  but  I  trust  you  have 
learned,  that  assertions  pass  for  nothing  in 
this  controversy;  especially  when  the  Lord 
has  declared  that,  "the  soul  that  doeih aught 
presumptuously  shall  be  cut  off  from  among 
his  people"  Even  sabbath-breaking  and  ma- 
ny other  transgressions  were  capitally  pun- 
ished. Yid.  Exo.  xxi,  xxii,  and  xxiii.  Lev. 
xix,  and  xx.  Num.  xv.  Jf  only  one  of  these 
precepts,  were  put  in  force  against  some 
churches,  of  the  present  day,  which  make 
great  pretentions  to  "gospel  purity,"  I  sus- 


125 

pect  very  few  of  their  members  would  es- 
cape the  sentence  of  being  "  stoned  to 
death."  It  is  evident,  that  nothing  was  want- 
ing under  the  former  dispensation,  to  pre- 
serve the  purity,  and  promote  the  spiritual 
interests  of  the  church,  but  a  disposition  in 
the  priests  and  elders  to  administer  the  laws, 
which  God  had  given  them.  To  the  neglect 
of  this,  and  not  to  any  defect  in  the  consti- 
tution of  the  church,  are  to  be  imputed  all 
the  irregularities,  which  were  then  tolerated. 
But  for  this,  Israel  would  have  continued  to 
enjoy  the  inheritance  of  their  fathers.  The 
same  negfect  has  been  the  occasion  of  great 
dishonour  to  the  Christian  church.  But  in 
neither  case,  does-  it  prove,  that  they  were 
not  the  visible  church  of  God. 

Leb.  But  their   repentance  was  expres- 
sed by  ceremonial  observances. 

Eitg.  Very  true  ;  but  it  has  been  already 
shewn,  that  in  performing  these,  the  Lord 
required  holiness  of  heart.  And  what  puts 
this  beyond  all  dispute,  is  the  fact,  that  the 
Lord  promised  forgiveness  to  those  who  had 
transgressed,  when  they  offered  their  sin  of- 
ferings and  made  an  humble  confession  of 
their  sin.  This  promise  related  not  only  to 
ceremonial,  but  also  to  moral  offences ;  as 
you  will  learn  by  inspecting  the  chapters  to 
which  I  last  referred.  But  will  any  one 
suppose,  that  the  Lord  promised  pardon, 
under  that  dispensation,  on  condition  of  any 
thing  short  of  true  repentance  and  faith? 
If  so,  then  the  ceremonial  law,  instead  of 
11* 


126 

being  "a  yoke  of  bondage,"  must  hare  bees 
infinitely  lighter  than  the  gospel  require- 
ments; and  wicked  men,  with  impenitent 
hearts,  might  then  have  claimed  not  only 
temporal  blessings,  but  even  pardon  and  e- 
ternal  life  at  the  hand  of  God.  But  no! 
The  Lord  cannot  forgive  a  single  sin,  ex- 
cept through  the  atonement  of  his  Son;  and 
to  none  but  such  as  are  penitent  for  sin,  and 
trust  in  that  atonement.  Hence  it  is  evident 
that  the  Jews  were  required  to  be  sincere  in 
their  confession  of  sin  and  truly  penitent  be- 
fore God,  and  to  trust  in  the  merits  of  the 
promised  Messiah,  (of  which  their  sin-offer- 
ings were  an  external  expression,)  in  order 
to  obtain  forgiveness,  and  enjoy  the  blessings 
of  the  covenant. 


SECTION  IV. 

Evgenius.  A  3d  argument  in  favour  of 
the  sameness  of  the  church,  is  derived,  from 
the  application  of  the  same,  figures,  to  ex- 
press I  he  relation,  between  God  and  the 
church  under  both  dispensations. 

The  Lord  not  only  called  the  Jews,  in 
hundreds  of  instances,  "  his  people,"  and 
himself  "  their  god  ;"  but  he  expressed  his 
union  to  them,  by  the  same  tern  er  and  en- 
dearing appellations,  which  he  applies  to  the 
Christian  church.  The  marriage  covenant 
is  one  of  the  most  striking  and  appropriate 
figures  to  express  this  relation*  and  this  is 
applied  equally  to  both. 


127 


He  says, 

To    the  Jewish   church, 
"  For  thy  Maker  is  thy  hus- 
band ;  the  Lord  of  hosts  is  his 
name,  and  thy   Redeemer  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel."  Isa.  liv.  5. 

"  Turn,  O  backsliding-  chil- 
dren, saith  the  Lord,  for  I  am 
married  unto  you.  Jer.  iii.  14. 
My  covenant  they  brake,  al- 
though I  was  an  husband  unto 
them,  saith  the  Lord."  Chap. 
xxxi.  32 

"  As  the  bridegroom  rej  iceth 
over  the  bride,  so  shall  thy  God 
rejoice  over  thee."    Isa.  lxii.  5. 

"  I  remember  thee,  the  kind- 
ness of  thy  youth,  the  love  of 
thine  espousals,  8cc  Israel  was 
holiness  unto  the  Lord."  Isa. 
ii.  2,  3. 

H  Thou  hast  played  the  harlot 
with  many  lovers. — And  I  saw, 
when  for  all  the  causes,  where- 
by backsliding-  Israel  commit- 
ted adultery,  1  had  put  her  a- 
way,  and  given  her  a  bill  of  di- 
vorce ;  yet  her  treacherous  sis- 
ter Judah  feared  not,  but  went 
and  played  the  harlot  also. — 
Surely,  as  a  wife  treacherously 
departeth  from  her  husband, 
so  have  ye  dealt  treacherously 
with  me."    Jer.  iii.  1 — 8. 

And  when  the  Lord  had  re- 
jected the  ten  tribes  for  their 
idolatry,  he  declares, 

"  She  is  not  my  wife,  neither 
am  1  her.  husband."  Hos.  ii.  2. 


To  the  Christian  church, 
"  For  the  husband  is  the  head 
of  the  wife,  even  as  Christ  is 
the  head  of  the  church,  and 
he  is  the  Saviour  of  the  body.*' 
Eph.  v.  23. 

"  Fori  am  jealous  over  you, 
with  a  Godly  jealousy,  for  I 
have  espoused  you  to  one  hus- 
band, that  I  may  present  you 
as  a  chaste  virgin  to  Christ."  2 
Cor.  xi.  2. 

"  Come  hither,  I  will  shew  thee 
the  bride,  the  Lamb's  wife. — 
and  I  saw  the  holy  city — prepa- 
red as  a  br<de,  adorned  for  her 
husband."    Rev.  xxi.  9,  2. 

"  Nevertheless,  I  have  some- 
what against  thee,  because  thou 
hast  left  thy  first  love."  Rev. 
ii.  4. 

'*  But  I  have  a  few  things  a- 
gainst  thee,  because  thou  hast 
there  them  f.hat  hold  the  doc- 
trine of  Balaam,  who  taught 
Balak  to  cast  a  stumbling  block 
before  the  children  of  Israel, 
to  eat  things  sacrificed  unto 
idols,  and  to  commit  fornica- 
tion. R-v.  ii  14. — Thou  suffer- 
est  thai  woman  Jezebel  to  se- 
duce my  servants  to  commit 
fornication,  &c."  Ver.  20—22. 

Vid.  also  the  description  of 
the  corrupt  Roman  church. — 
Rev.  xvii.  and  recollect,  that 
both  in  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
tament, idolatry  is  called  forni- 
cation or  adultery. 


But  when  be  predicts  the  final  restoration 
of  the  Jews,  and  the  calling  of  the  gentiles 
he  says — "It  shall  be  at  that  day,  saith  the 
Lord,  that  thou  shalt  call  me  Tshi,  (i.  e.  my 
husband.)  And  I  will  betroth  thee  unto  me> 


123 


forever;  yea,  I  will  betroth  thee  unto  me, 
in  righteousness,  and  in  judgment  and  in  lo- 
ving kindness,  and  in  mercies.  1  will  even 
betroth  thee  unto  me  in  faithfulness,  and 
thou  shalt  know  the  Lord.  And  I  will  say 
unto  them  which  are  not  wy  people,  Thott 
art  my  people,  and  they  shail  say  Thou 
akt  my  God."  Hos.  ii.  16 — 23. 

Thus  when  the  Jews  are  gathered  in  with 
the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles,  then  both  will 
stand  in  the  same  relation  to  God  ;  and  that 
relation  will  be  the  same  which  subsisted  be- 
tween God  and  the  ancient  church.  He 
will  be  "their  husband,"  and  they  "his 
wife."  He  will  be  «  their  God,'*  and  they 
"  his  people. " 

The  union  between  Christ  and  his  people 
is  also  expressed  by  the  relation  between  a 
shepherd  and  his  flock  ;  and  this  is  applied 
to  the  church  under  both  dispensations. 


"  Give  ear,  O  shepherd  of  Is- 
rael, chou  that  leadest  Joseph 
as  a  flock."  Psal.  lxxx.  1. 

«*  We  thy  people  and  the  sheep 
of  thy  pasture,  lxxix.  13.  The 
Lord  is  my  shepherd,  I  shall 
not  want;  he  make  th  me  to  lie 
down  in  green  pas.ures,"  &c. 
xxiii.  1.  He  made  his  people  to 
go  forth  like  sheep."  lvii.  52. 

"  He  is  our  God3  and  we  are 
the  people  of  his  pasture,  and 
the  sheep  of  his  hand."  xcv.  7. 

"  All  we  like  sheep  have  gone 
astray — and  the  Lord  hath  laid 
on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all." 
Isa.  liii.  6. 


"I  am  the  good  shepherd  and 
know  my  sheep,  and  am  known 


of  mi 


Joh   x.  14. 


"  Take  heed,  therefore,  to  all 
the  flock  over  the  which  the 
Hoi)  Ghost  hath  made  you  o- 
veiseers  ;  to  fVed  the  church  of 
God,  &c.  For  I  know  that  af- 
ter my  departure,  grievous 
wolves  shall  enter  in,  not  spa- 
ring- the  flock  "  Acts  xx.  28. 

"  Fear  not,  little  flock,  for  it 
is  your  father's  good  pleasure 
to  give  you  the  kingdom." 
Luke.  xii.  32. 

"  For  we  were  as  sheep  going 
astray,  but  are  now  returned 
unto  the  shepherd  and  bishop 
of  your  souls."  2  Pet.  ii.  25. 


129 

Concerning  both  Christ  says  "I  lay  down 
my  life  for  the  sheep.  And  other  sheep  1 
have,  which  are  not  of  this  fold,  them  also 
I  must  bring,  and  they  shall  hear  my  voice, 
and  there  shall  be  one  fold  and  one  shep- 
herd.,r    Joh.  x.  15,  16. 

The  figure  of  a  vine  and  vineyard  is  ap- 
plied to  the  church  under  both  dispensa- 
tions. 

"  My  well  beloved  hath  a  tfine-  u  For  the  kingdom  of  heaven 

yard  in  a  very  fruitful  hill,  &c.  is    like  unto   a  man  that  is   a 

The   vineyard  of  the  Lord  of  house-holder,  which  went   out 

hosts,   is  the    house   of  Israel,  early  in  the   morning",   to  hire 

and    the    men    of   Judah    his  labourers    into    his    vineyard, 

pleasant  plant "     Is.  v.  1— 7.  &c."     Mat.  xx.  1—16. 

"Thou  hast  brought  a  vine  "  I  am  the  true  vine,  and  my 

out  of  Egypt,    thou  hast   cast  Father  is  the  husbandman,  &c. 

out  the  heathen  and  planted  it,  lam  the  vine,,ye  are  the  bran- 

&c."  Psal.  lxxx.  8—15.  ches,  &c."  Joh:  xv.  1—6. 

"  There  was  a  certain  house-holder  which 
planted  a  vineyard,  &c.  and  let  it  out  to 
husbandmen,  and  went  into  a  far  country. — 
When  the  Lord  therefore  of  the  vineyard 
cometh,  he  will  miserably  destroy  those 
wicked  men,  and  will  let  out  his  vineyard 
unto  other  husbandmen,  which  shall  render 
him  the  fruits  in  their  seasons.  Therefore 
say  I  unto  you,  The  kingdom  of  God  shall 
be  taken  from  you  and  given  to  a  nation 
bringing  forth  the  fruits  thereof."  Mat.  xxh 
33—43. 

The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  also  called  the 
Rock  of  the  church,  under  both  dispensa- 
tions ;  and  that,  both  as  the  foundation  on 
which  she  is  built,  and  as  a  place  of  refuge 
in  time  of  trouble. 


130 


*'  Fie  is  the  Rock,  his  work  is  "  Therefore,  whosoever  hear- 

perfect,  &c.  Deutxxxii.2.  Then  eth  these  sayings  of  mine,  and 

he  forsook  God  which  made  him  doeth   them,   I  will  liken   him 

and  lightly  esteemed  the  Rock  unto  a  wise  man,  which  built  his 

of  his  salvation.   Ver.  15.    The  house  upon   a  rock,  &c.    Mat. 

God  of  Israel  said,  the  Rock  of  vii.  24.     Upon  this  rock  I  will 

Israel  spake,  &c."  2Sam.xxiii.  build  my  church,  &c."     Mat. 

3.  xvi.  18. 

"  Enter  into  the  rock  and  hide  "  To  whom  coming  as  unto  a 

thee,  &c."  Isa.  ii.  10.  living  stone,  &c.  chosen  of  God 

and  precious."  1  Pet.  ii.  4. 

"  Therefore,  thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  Be- 
hold I  lav  in  Zion,  for  a  foundation,  a  stone, 
a  tried  ataae,  a  piecious  corner  stone,  a  sure 
foundation,  he  that  believeih,  shall  not  make 
haste.*'  Comp.  Isa.  xxviii.  16.  and  1  Pet.  ii.  6. 
"And  are  built,  upon  the  foundation  of  the  a- 
postles  and  prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself 
being  the  chief  corner  stone."     Eph.  ii.  20* 

Other  metaphors  might  be  cited  from  the 
holy  scriptures,  and  many  more  examples  of 
those  already  adduced,  might  have  been 
presented,  but  these  are  sufficient  to  enforce 
the  argument.  I  shall  therefore  conclude 
this  branch  of  the  subject  by  remarking,  that 
the  word  "  church"  is  appropriated  to  the 
common  wealth  of  Israel,  as  well  as  to  the 
Christian  household.  Some  of  your  "learn- 
ed authors"  have  affected  to  consider  this 
fact,  as  having  no  weight  in  this  controver- 
sy ;  merely  because,  the  same  word,  in  the 
original,  is  applied  to  the  tumultuous  as- 
sembly, convened  at  Ephesus,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  uproar  made  bv  the  craftsmen 
of  that  city.  Acts  xix.  32—41.  This  ex- 
ception,  they  consider,  as  destroying  the 


131 

whole  force  of  the  argument.  That  a  sin- 
gle exception  to  the  application  of  a  word, 
destroys,  what  you  cull,  an  "explicit  war- 
rant," I  am  willing  to  admit  ;  and  ail  lask 
is  that  you  will  continue  of  the  same  opin- 
ion, in  a  Subsequent  part  of  the  controversy. 
But  I  do  not  adduce  this  word  as  "  explicit 
warrant;"  I  present  it  as  an  argument,  in 
common  with  many  others  which  have  been 
urged.  And  you  will  be  able  to  judge,  for 
yourself,  how  much  consequence  ought  to 
be  attached  to  it,  when  you  are  informed  of 
the  derivation  and  import  of  the  word 
"church." 

The  original  term,  is  compounded  of  two 
Greek  words,  which  simply  mean,  "  called 
out  or  from  ;"  and  this  phrase,  is  singularly 
expressive  of  the  idea,  which  it  is  designed  to 
convey.  When  the  Lord  entered  into  cov- 
enant with  Abraham,  he  "  called  him  out" — 
bid  him  "  depart  out  of  his  country  and 
from  hiskindred  and  from  his  father'shouse." 
And  for  what  ? — To  form  a  "  peculiar  peo- 
ple to  the  Lord  of  hosts."  Hence,  his  pos- 
terity were  styled  "  a  holy  and  peculiar  peo- 
ple— a  peculiar  treasure  and  a  kingdom  of 
priests — chosen  ones.79  Exo.  xix.  6.  Deut. 
xiv.  2.  xxvi.  18,  19.  1  Chron.  xvi.  13.  And 
hence  also  the  Christian  church  is  called  "a 
chosen  generation,  a  royal  priesthood  a  holy 
nation,  a  peculiar  people  that  they  should  shew 
forth  the  praises  of  him,  who  hath  called 
them  out  oj  darkness,  into  his  marvellous 
light,  SCc."    1  Pet.  ii.  9,  10.     It  is  evident, 


132 

therefore,  that  the  word  "church"  is  appli- 
ed in  its  strictest  and  most  appropriate 
sense,  to  the  commonwealth  of  Israel  as 
well  as  to  the  community  of  Christians  ;  be- 
cause each  in  their  place,  have  been  by 
profession  "  the  people  of  God,"  separated 
from  the  rest  of  the  world.  Therefore  St. 
Peter,  after  applying  to  believing  Gentiles, 
the  abovementioned  terms,  (which  had 
been  previously  applied  to  Israel,)  adds, 
"  Who  in  time  past  were  not  a  people  ;  but 
are  now  the  people  of  God  ;  which  had  not 
obtained  mercy,  but  now  have  obtained 
mercy." 

From  all  this  it  appears,  that  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  was  the  GOD  of  Israel,  in  the 
same  sense,  in  which  he  is  the  GOD  of  the 
Christian  church — that  he  is  the  husband  of 
both — the  shepherd  of  both — the  foundation 
of  both  ;  and  that  they  are  his  people — his 
bride  or  wife — his  Jiock — his  vineyard — his 
CHURCH.  That  these  words  have  an  in- 
finitely different  meaning,  when  applied  to 
the  two  communities,  may  be  asserted,  but 
it  has  never  been  proved;  nor  will  any  man 
of  unprejudiced  mind  believe  the  assertion. 
From  these  facts  it  is  evident,  that,  in  God's 
estimation,  the  church  has  been  the  same, 
in  every  age. 

I  now  proceed  to  a  5th  argument  in  sup- 
port of  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  church,  which  is  founded  on  the 
nature  and  design  of  the  special  ordinances 
of  the  two  dispensations. 


153 

That  there  is  a  unity  of  nature  and  de- 
sign in  the  passover  and  the  Lord's  supper, 
I  believe,  your  denomination  are  not  in  the 
habit  of  disputing.  Though  the  former  was 
instituted  in  commemoration  of  a  great  tem- 
poral deliverance,  yet  all  are  satisfied,  that 
the  paschal  lamb  pointed  to  "  the  Lamb  of 
God  ;"  and  the  sprinkling  of  his  blood  on  the 
dwellings  of  Israel  as  a  token  to  the  de- 
stroying angel  to  pass  them  by,  represent- 
ed the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  by  virtne  of 
which  his  people  are  delivered  from  the  de- 
struction that  awaits  the  ungodly.  The 
same,  is  the  design  of  the  Lord's  Supper. — 
The  only  difference  is  this,  that  the  one, 
was  prospective  ;  the  other,  is  retrospective. 
That  pointed  to  a  Saviour  to  come  ;  this, 
1o  a  Saviour  already  come.  That  the  lat- 
ter was  designed  to  take  the  place  of  the 
former,  is  evident  from  the  time  of  its  insti- 
tution— the  subsequent  practice  of  the  apos- 
tles, and  from  its  being  called  by  the  same 
name.  "  For  even  Christ  our  passover,  is 
sacrificed  for  us.  Therefore,  let  us  keep 
the  feast,  not  with  old  leaven,  neither  with 
the  leaven  of  malice  and  wickedness,  but 
with  the  unleavened  bread  of  sincerity  and 
truth."  1  Cor.  v.  7,  8.  This  statement  of 
the  case  I  suppose  will  be  equally  satisfac- 
tory to  you  and  me. 

With  respect  to  unity  of  design,  in  cir- 
cumcision and   baptism,  your  system  dis- 
sents.    But  I  am  satisfied,  that  here  is  as 
striking  a  coincidence  as  in  the  former  case. 
12 


134 

1.  Circumcision  was  a  token  of  the  cote- 
nant  between  God  and  Abraham  and  his  seed. 
"  //  shall  be  a  token  of  the  covenant  betwixt 
me  and  you"  This  I  have  shewn  you,  is 
the  covenant  of  grace.  And  this  was  the 
external  mark,  by  which  the  existence  of 
that  covenant  was  known.  Baptism  occu- 
pies the  very  same  place. 

2.  Circumcision  was  "  a  seal  of  the  righ- 
teousness of  faith:"  so  is  baptism.  "  He  that 
believeth,  and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved,  &c." 
Mark  xvi.  16.  "  Then  they  that  gladly  re- 
ceived his  rvord  were  baptized,  &c."  Acts 
ii.  41.  "But  when  they  believed,  &c.  they 
were  baptized. — And  Simon  himself  believed 
also  and  was  baptized"  Acts  viii.  12,  13. 
And  the  eunuch  said,  "What  doth  hinder  me 
to  be  baptized?"  And  Philip  said,  "  If  thou 
helievest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest, 
&c."  Ver.  26,  37.  In  all  these  cases  and  a 
multitude  of  others,  baptism  is  distinctly 
recognised  as  "  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith." 

3.  Circumcision  was  an  external  sign  of 
internal  grace.  "  Circumcise  the  foreskin 
of  your  hearts."  Deut.  x.  16.  Hence,  the 
apostle  calls  it  "  the  sign  of  circumcision," 
and  asserts,  that  "  that  is  not  circumcision 
which  is  outward  in  the  flesh,  but  that  which 
is  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit."  The  same  is 
the  import  of  baptism.  Hence  baptism  is  cal- 
led "  the  circumcision  of  Christ,"  or  Chris- 
tian circumcision.  Col.  ii.  11,  12.  Both 
point  to  the  corruption  of  human  nature,  and 


135 

indicate  the  necessity  of  a  change  of  hearf^ 
and  the  effect  produced  by  that  change.* 

4.  The  place  which  they  occupy  is  pre- 
cisely the  same.  Neither  baptism  nor  cir- 
cumcision is,  what  many  have  called  the  one 
or  the  other, an  "  initiating  ordinance,"  as  has 
been  shewn.  (See  page  64 — 5.).  The  latter, 
however,  was  the  first  seal  of  the  covenant 
under  the  former  dispensation,  and  without 
it,  the  other  special  privileges  could  not 
be  enjoyed.  "  For  no  uncircumcised  per- 
son shall  eat  thereof,"  that  is,  of  the  pass- 
over.  In  like  manner  baptism  is  now  the 
first  seal  of  the  covenant,  by  which  mem- 
bership in  the  Christian  church  is  recogni- 
sed, and  without  which,  no  person  can  be 
properly  admitted  to  the  Lord's  tablet 

*  It  is  a  notorious  fact,  that  the  Baptist  scheme  entirely  mis- 
represents the  import  and  design  of  the  ordinance  of  baptism, 
and  confounds  it  with  the  other  special  ordinance  of  the  gospeL 
"  The  end  of  baptism,  says  Dr.  Gill,  is  to  represent  the  burial  of 
Christ."  And  again,  "  One  end  of  it,  and  a  principal  one,  is  to 
represent  the  sufferings %  burial  and  resurrection  of  Christ."  The 
same  sentiments  are  to  be  found  in  every  Baptist  production  on 
the  subject ;  and  are  suggested  by  every  Baptist  professor,  who 
pretends  to  know  any  thing-  about  the  scheme  he  has  adopted.  But, 
I  am  bold  to  assert,  that  this  is  not  the  end,  design  or  import  of 
baptism,  but  of  the  Lord's  Supper.  Although  the  propitiatory  sac- 
rifice of  Christ,  was  completed  when  he  bowed  his  head  and  died, 
yet  in  as  much  as  the  way  was  not  completely  opened,  for  the 
justification  of  the  sinner,  until  he  had  arisen  from  the  grave, 
the  ordinance  of  the  supper,  is  justly  considered,  as  represent- 
ing that  great  work  in  all  its  parts.  But  baptism,  instead  of  de- 
noting the  same  thing,  represents  the  work  of  grace,  resulting 
from  the  atonement  of  Christ.  It  points  to  his  blood  as  the  me- 
ritorious cause  ;  to  the  influences  of  the  Spirit  as  the  efficient 
cause  ;  and  to  the  washing  away  of  sin,  as  the  consequence.  In 
a  word,  the  supper  represents  the  cause,  and  baptism  the  effect. 
Bui  on  the  Baptist  scheme,  they  both  signify  the  same  thing. 

f  I  must  confess  myself  not  a  little  surprised,  to  find  some  Pae- 
dobaptists,  expressing  themselves  favourably  to  a  novel  senti- 
ment, recently  advanced  by  Mr.  Hall,  a  distinguished  Baptist 


136 

1  will  only  add  here,  that  if  baptism  were 
not  appointed  by  our  Lord  in  the  room  of 
circumcision,  and  so  understood  by  the  a- 
postles,  then  that  rite  was  never  abrogated 

minister  in  England,  in  his  treatise  in  favour  of  free  communion. 
I  do  not  wish  to  detract,  in  the  smallest  degree,  from  the  merit 
of  this  catholic  production  ;  nor  to  circumscribe  its  influence, 
in  breaking  down  the  unchristian  barriers  of  that  church,  for 
which  it  is  evidently  intended  and  peculiarly  calculated.  And, 
although,  I  believe  that  when  this  is  accomplished,  the  result 
will  be  very  different  from  that  which  Mr.  Hall  anticipates — 
instead  of  the  Baptist  swallowing  up  the  Paedobaptist  church, 
the  reverse  I  presume  will  be  the  case  :  still  however,  I  cannot, 
with  the  hope  of  furthering  this  result,  subscribe  to  a  sentiment, 
which  I  consider  at  open  variance  with  the  orders  of  God's  house. 
Nor  can  I  conceive,  how  Paedobaptists  can  consider  themselves 
in  any  degree  complimented,  or  laid  under  obligations  to  Mr. 
Hall,  for  admission  to  his  communion  table,  when  they  consider 
the  ground  on  which  he  is  willing  to  admit  them  :-  viz.  as  un- 

BAPTIZEn  PERSONS. 

The  main  pillar  of  his  scheme  is  this ;  that  baptism,  is  not 
an  essential  prerequisite  to  communion  at  the  Lord's  table.  This, 
in  my  opinion,  instead  of  being  a  gospel  sentiment,  is  an  er- 
ror resulting  directly  from  the  Baptist  system,  elicited  by  the 
catholic  spirit  of  the  age  in  which  we  live.  Mr.  Hall  and  others 
of  his  communion,  who  partake  largely  of  this  spirit,  begin  to 
feel  that  "  close  communion"  is  a  practice,  too  remote  from 
Christian  charity,  to  be  tolerated ;  and  the  ground  which  he  has 
taken,  is  the  only  one  which  a  Baptist  supposes  he  can  take, 
with  any  degree  of"  self-consistency.  But  if  it  can  be  shewn  that 
this  ground  is  inconsistent  with  the  gospel,  good  men  will  cer- 
tainly choose  rather  to  be  inconsistent  with  themselves,  than 
with  the  laws  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

The  main  argument,  which  Mr.  Hall  has  urged  in  favour  of 
his  position,  or  at  least,  that  which  has  induced  the  Pxdobap- 
tists,  with  whom  I  have  conversed,  to  think  favourably  of  his  doc- 
trine, is  this  :  Having  proved,  t;what  Paedobaptists  have  proved 
a  thousand  times*  before,)  that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism  ;  that  the  latter  was  not  instituted,  till  after  our  Lord's 
resurrection,  and  consequently  that  the  Apostles,  and  probably, 
the  hundred  and  twenty  brethren,  who  were  with  them  previous 
to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  were  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table  with- 
out baptism,  he  concludes  that  the  Lordys  supper,  was  in  fact,  a 
prior  institution,  and  therefore,  that  baptism  cannot  be  an  essen- 
tial prerequisite. 

I  cheerfully  subscribe  to  the  opinion  that  the  twelve  Apostles, 
•:<nd  the  hundred  and  twenty  brethren,  yea,  I  go  farther — I  be- 
ffeve  that  the  five  hundred  who  beheld  the  Lord  after  his  resur- 


137 

by  Jesus  Christ.  It  was  not  nailed  to  the 
eross  with  the  ceremonial  law,  because  it 
was  no  part  of  that  law.  It  was  institu- 
ted and  practised  more  than  four  hundred 

rection  ;  in  a  word,  that  all  who  were  members  of  the  Christian 
church,  previous  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  never  received  Chris- 
tian  baptism  :  but  not  for  the  reasons  which  Mr.  Hall  assigns. — 
The  idea  that  "  the  precept  of  baptism  had  no  retrospective  bear- 
ing-," if  proved  to  be  correct,  would  not  account  for  so  important 
an  omission,  in  the  first  organization  (according-  to  the  Baptist 
scheme)  of  the  church.  Nor  can  I  conceive,  any  impropriety,  in 
"  the  Apostles  of  the  Lord,  who  had  continued  with  him  in  his 
temptations,  placing  themselves  on  a  level,"  in  regarding-  a  Chris- 
tian ordinance,  "  with  that  multitude,  which,  however  penitent 
at  present,  had  recently  demanded  his  blood  with  clamorous 
importunity."  The  Apostles  were,  by  nature,  children  of  wrath, 
in  common  with  that  multitude ;  and  they  were  indebted  to  the 
same  sovereign  grace  for  salvation.  And  though  they  were  ef- 
fectually called  at  an  earlier  period,  yet  this  was  not  because 
they  were  any  better  than  others.  But  if  this  circumstance  ren- 
dered it  improper  for  them  to  "place  themselves  on  a  level'9  with 
those  who  were  converted  afterwards,  in  regard  to  baptism ,-  the 
same  reason  would  apply,  with  equal  propriety,  to  the  other  or- 
dinance :  and  therefore  they  might  have  refused  to  sit  down  at 
the  Lord's  table  with  those  guilty  murderers.  But  no  such  dis- 
tinctions are  countenanced  in  the  word  of  God  :  a  temper  of  heart 
directly  the  reverse,  to  what  this  is  calculated  to  inspire,  is  uni- 
formly inculcated. 

My  reasons  for  believing  that  the  Apostles,  and  all  who  were 
attached  to  the  Christian  church,  previous  to  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, never  received  Christian  baptism,  are  the  following :  viz. 

1.  We  know  that  the  Apostles  received  the  sacrament  of  the 
holy  supper  before  Christian  baptism  was  instituted.  The  for- 
mer was  instituted  on  the  same  night  in  which  Christ  was  be- 
trayed :  the  latter  not  till  after  his  resurrection,  probably  just 
before  his  ascension.  Hence,  it  does  not  appear,  in  the  least  de- 
gree probable,  that  they  were  baptised,  after  Lt  ing  admitted  to 
the  Lord's  table.  Beside  this,  the  scripture  is  entirely  silent, 
respecting  the  baptism  of  those  who  believed,  before  the  day  ot 
Pentecost.  There  is  not  the  smallest  intimation  given,  nor  the 
least  fact  recorded,  from  which  it  can  be  inferred,  that  any  per- 
son was  baptized  m  obedience  to  our  Lord's  command,  previous 
to  that  distinguished  day.  And  although  this  absence  of  testi- 
mony does  not,  of  itself  prove,  that  they  were  not  baptized,  yet 
*he  presumption  will  be  greatly  increased,  when  it  is  observed, 

2.  That  on  the  Paedobaptist  scheme,  there  was  no  necessity 
for  their  baptism  ;  yea,  their  baptism  would  have  been  a  great 
irregularity.    If  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  essential- 

12* 


I3S 

years  before  that  law  existed;  and  the  cov- 
enant, of  which  it  was  a  seal,  St.  Paul  de- 
ciares,  could  not  be  annulled  by  the  cere- 
monial law.    Consequently,  if  the  command 

ly  the  same— if  the  same  sovereign  act  that  removed  the  for- 
mer dispensation,  set  up  the  present ;  and  if  the  same  judicial 
stroke,  that  excommunicated  the  unbelieving  Jews,  left  those 
who  believed,  in  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  privileges  of  the  cov- 
enant ;  then  indeed,  there  was  no  necessity  of  their  being  bapti- 
sed ;  for  they  had  already  received  the  first  seal  of  the  covenant — 
the  mark  of  membership  ;  and  to  have  baptized  them  would  have 
been  only  a  repetition  of  the  same  thing-.  Hence,  there  was  a 
manifest  propriety,  in  our  Lord's  administering  to  them,  the  or- 
dinance of  the  supper,  without  baptism.  So  near  do  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  churches  stand  to  each  other,  that  the  last  holy 
feast  of  the  one,  and  the  first  holy  feast  of  the  other,  were  cele- 
brated at  the  same  tahfe,  without  a  moment's  interval ;  and  the 
same  seal  of  the  covenant  (circumcision)  was  the  passport  to 
both. 

Here  then,  on  Pxdobaptist  principles,  is  a  beautiful  consisten- 
cy in  the  conduct  of  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  with  respect  to 
church  order  v  which,,  on  the  Baptist  scheme,  is  entirely  destroy- 
ed. For,  if  the  Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  not  essential- 
ly the  same,  then  the  Apostles  were  admitted  to  the  Lord's  ta- 
ble, not  only  without  baptism,  but  without  any  thing  which  an- 
swered to  that  institution.  They  were,  admitted  to  the  privi- 
lege of  members,  without  the  mark  of  membership  ;  and  it  may 
well  be  matter  of  surprise,  that  Christ  should  organize  his 
church  in  so  irregular  a  manner,  as  to  be  under  the  necessity  of 
reversing  the  order  of  his  ordinances,  immediately  afterwards. 

To  confirm  tLe  view  which  has  been  given,  I  would  further 
remark,  that  the  institution  of  the  supper,  was  the  concluding 
act  of  our  Saviour's  ministry  ;  for  in  the  same  hour  his  passion 
commenced,  and  continued  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  till  on 
the  cross  he  exclaimed  in  expiring  agony,  "IT  IS  FINISHED." 
Then  "  he  bhttexl  ovt  the  hand  writing  of  ordinances,  and  took  it 
avi  of  the  way,  nailing  it- to  his  crosa."  Col.  li.  14.  Then,  and  not 
till  then,  the  ceremonial  law  was  completely  abrogated.  Cfir* 
c umcision,  howevci-j  wh.eh,  1  have  shewn,  was  no  part  of  the 
ceremon.al  law,  was  not  changed  until  alter  his  resurrection. 

He  had  previously  warned  the  Jews,  that  "the  kingdom  ©f 
God  should  be  taken  from  them,  and  given  to  a  nation,  bringing 
forth  the  fruits  thereof."  When  he  pronounced  these  words,  he 
spake  of  the  event  us  future  ;  and  he  forewarned  them  of  it,  that 
by  timely  repentance,  they  might  save  themselves  from  the 
dreadful  sentence  of  excommunication.  Hence,  he  continued  to 
preach  to  them,  and  sent  his  disciples  to  warn  them,  for  the' 
•Space  of  three  years.     But  all  these  exertions,  proving  fruit  tegf. 


139 

to  baptize,  did  not  supersede  circumefsibrtv 

then  our  Saviour  die!  not  abrogate  that  rih; 
at  all ;  and  the  apostles  acted  without,  au- 
thority, in  discontinuing  it. 

as  he  entered  Jerusalem  for  the  last  time,  in  view  of  the  terrible 
judgment  of  which  he  hud  forewarned  them,  and  which  he  had 
then  come  to  inflict,  he  wept  over  the  devoted  city  and  said, 
"  O  Jerusalem,  Jerusalem,  that  killest  the  prophets,  and  stonest 
them  that  are  sent  unto  thee  ;  ho~v  often  -would  I  have  gathered  thy 
children  together,  even  as  a  hen  gal  here  th  her  chickens  under  her 
"wings,  and  ye  -woidd  not.  Behold  your  house  is  left  unto  you  deso- 
late." Mat.  xxiii.  37—39.  Tile  same  sentiment,  is  expressed, 
slill  more  explicitly,,  by  another  evangelist:  "  If  thou  hadit  known, 
even  thou,  at  teast  in  this  thy  day  the  things  -which  belong  unto 
thy  peace  !   lint  NOW  thet  auk  hid  tkom  think  eyes." 

Here,  is  the  sentence  of  excommunication,  against  the  unbe- 
lieving part  of  the  Jewish  nation,  pronounced  by  the  Great  King 
and  head  of  the  church  in  person.  The  time  was  at  hand  when 
he  was  to  be  delivered  up  to  their  power  and  put  to  death  or. 
the  cross  ;  and  there  seemed  to  he  a  peculiar  propriety,  in  ex- 
cluding them  from  the  church,  before  they  had  perpetrated  that 
presumptuous  deed.  Hence,  our  Saviour  declare*,  "NOW" — at 
this  very  time,  "  The  things  -which  belong  to  your  peace,  are  hid 
from  your  eyes  — Your  house  is  left  unto  you  desolate."  And  he 
adds,  "  Ye  shall  not  see  me  hence,  till  ye  shall  say,  blessed  is  he 
that  cometh,  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  Though  individuals 
might  be  converted,  yet  as  a  nation,  they  shall  not  see  him,  t'dl 
they  are  ready  to  receive  him  in  his  millenial  glory.  He  then 
proceeds  to  predict  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  as  a  conse- 
quence of  their  rejection  of  heaven;  which  was  accomplished 
about  forty  years  afterwards. 

When  our  Saviour  pronounced  this  sentence,  the  way  was  o- 
pened,  for  the  change  of  dispensation.  This  change  was  not 
completed,  as  I  have  already  observed,  till  our  Lord  exclaimed 
on  the  cross,  ,{  It  is  finished,"  and  "  the  tail  of  the  tkmpus 
was  r.F.NT  in  twain."  But  here,  was  the  first  act  .of  it.  "  The 
kingdom  of  God  was  taken  from  the  unbelieving  Jews."  Those 
who  believed,  continued  to  occupy  their  former  standing,  and 
thus  constituted  the  church  ;  and  lier.ee  our  Saviour,  two  days 
afterwards,  at  the  close  of  the  passover,  proceeded  to  institute 
and  administer  to  his  disciples  the  holy  supper,  without  any 
formality  in  organizing  a  new  church,  and  without  previously 
instituting  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  Thus,  the  church  contin- 
ued through  the  change  of  dispensation,  without  a  change  of 
constitution  ;  and  consequently,  without  nullifying  the  first  seal 
of  tlie  covenant,  which  was  not  changed  till  several  days  after- 
wards. 

Here  then,  I  conceive,   is  the  true  reason  why  the  ApostW, 


no 

Leb.  But,  sir,  if  the  apostles  had  under- 
stood the  subject  in  this  light,  is  it  not  rea- 
sonable to  suppose,  that  it  would  have  been 
clearly  expressed  in  the  result  of  the  coun- 
cil at  Jerusalem,  where  the  point  was  agi- 
tated ?     See  Acts,  xv. 

Eiig.  The  question  submitted  to  that 
council  was  not,  "  Whish  of  the  two,  cir- 
cumcision or  baptism,  ought  to  be  obser- 
ved ?"  but  merely,  "Whether  the  rite  of 
circumcision  was  obligatory  an  Gentile 
converts?"  No  one  doubted  the  propri- 
ety and  obligation  of  baptizing  them;  but 
some  contended,  that  in  addition  to  the 
Christian  sacraments,  they  must  be  circum- 
cised. We  know  that  in  those  days,  there 
was  a  strong  attachment,  even  among  the 
believing  Jews,  to  their  former  religious 
rites  ;  and  in  this  they  were  in  some  mea- 
sure indulged  by  the  apostles:  for  it  was  in 
condescension  to  these  prejudices  that  Paul 
circumcised  Timothy;  Acts,  xvi.  3.  and  by 

and  all  the  rest  of  those  who  believed,  previous  to  the  day  of 
Fcntecost,  were  not  baptized.  They  had  received  the  existing- 
seal  of  the  covenant,  before  the  change  of  dispensation  ;  and  had 
not  been  cast  out  of  the  covenant,  when  that  change  took  place. 
It  is  no  objection  to  this  reasoning',  that  those  Jews,  who  were 
afterwards  converted,  were  required  to  be  baptized,  notwithstand- 
ing they  had  been  circumcised.  It  is  true  that  in  receiving  an 
excommunicated  member,  upon  satisfactory  evidence  of  repent- 
ance, at  the  present  time,  we  should  not  require  him  to  be  re- 
baptized.  But  such  a  case  is  not  parallel  to  the  former.  The 
unbelieving  Jews  had  been  excommunicated  under  a  former 
dispensation  ;  and  during'  the  time  of  their  separation  from  the 
church,  the  seals  of  the  covenant  had  been  changed.  Hence,  af- 
ter the  change  had  taken  place,  they  were  properly  considered 
as  standing  on  the  same  ground,  with  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  and 
therefore,  when  they  professed  to  believe,  they  were  received,  in 
the  same  manner,  with  others  who  had  never  been  visibly  in  th» 
covenant 


141 

the  advice  of  the  brethren  at  Jerusalem,  pu- 
rified himself  after  the  manner  of  the  cere- 
monial law  :  though,  at  the  same  time,  they 
declare,  that  the  council  had  ordained  that 
the  believing  Gentiles  should  "  observe  110 
such  thing"  Acts,  xxi.  13 — 26. 

But  that  the  observance  of  the  Christian 
sacraments,  by  the  believing  Gentiles,  was 
considered  by  St.  James,  as  superseding  the 
necessity  of  the  Jewish  rites,  and  as  forming 
the  ground  of  his  opinion,  which  was  adopted 
by  the  council,  is  pretty  plainly  intimated 
in  the  words  which  he  quoted  from  the  pro- 
phet Amos.  The  persons  concerning  whom 
this  decision  was  made  are  styled  "Gentiles, 
which  are  called  by  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;? 
or  as  St.  James  himself  expresses  it,  "  upon 
whom  the  name  of  the  Lord  is  called."  Comp. 
Amos,  ix.  11, 12.  and  Acts,  xv.  16, 17.  Now 
I  wish  to  know  whether  this  is  not  a  distinct 
recognition  of  baptism  as  superseding  the 
necessity  of  circumcision  ?  For  to  what  else 
than  to  their  baptism  can  St.  James  be  sup- 
posed to  allude,  when  he  speaks  of  them  as 
persons  "  upon  whom  the  name  of  the  Lord  is 
called.^  INo  other  satisfactory  reason  can  be 
assigned  for  his  thus  varying  and  adapting 
the  words  of  the  prophet. 

From  this  concise  statement  of  the  case, 
it  is  evident  that  baptism  occupies  the  place 
of  circumcision,  and  the  Lord's  supper  that 
of  thepassover; the  one  being ca I \ti\  ''Christ's 
circumcision,"  and  the  other,  "  Christ  our 
passover*" 


142 

Leb.  But  there  is  this  "essential  diffe- 
rence between  circumcision  and  baptism  ; 
the  former  was  applied  only  to  males — the 
latter  is  applied  equally  to  females." 

Eug.  Though  the  Lord  has  often  insti- 
tuted religious  rites,  without  revealing  to 
us  the  particular  reasons  on  which  they 
are  founded ;  yet  we  can  frequently  disco- 
ver a  manifest  propriety,  and  a  striking  sig- 
nificance in  them.  And  this,  I  think,  was 
the  case  in  respect  to  circumcision.  Though 
it  was  a  rite  which  was  applied  only  to  one 
sex,  yet  the  other  was  considered  as  virtual- 
ly circumcised  at  the  same  time.  For  the 
Lord  peremptorily  forbade  any  uneircum- 
cised  person  to  eat  of  the  passover ;  and  yet 
females  were  admitted,  without  the  least 
hesitation. — And  in  the  scriptures,  the  term 
circumcision  is  used  to  designate  the  Jewish 
church,  both  male  and  female  ;  and  iincir- 
cumcision  the  Gentiles.  There  would  be  no 
propriety  in  these  things,  yea,  in  the  former 
case,  there  would  have  been  an  open  viola- 
tion of  the  divine  statute,  if  females  had  not 
been  considered  virtually  circumcised. 

This  being  the  fact,  there  is  no  room 
for  your  assertion  that  there  is  "  an  essential 
difference  between  circumcision  and  bap- 
tism." Yea,  if  females  had  been  treated  un- 
der that  dispensation  as  uncircumcised  per- 
sons, that  circumstance  would  not  have  con- 
stituted an  essential  difference  between  the 
two  ordinances.  A  part  of  the  subjects  would 
have  been  different  as  to  sex,  but  the  reli- 


143 

gious  rite  would  have  been  precisely  the 
same  in  import  and  design.  Therefore  the 
subsequent  change  of  this  rite  for  another, 
which  should  be  applied  equally  to  both  sex- 
es, instead  of  making  an  essential  difference 
in  the  rite  itself,  could  only  be  considered 
as  an  enlargement  of  the  covenant  of  which 
that  rite  was  the  seal.  And  this  extended 
application  of  the  seal  under  the  present 
dispensation,  is  distinctly  intimated  by  the 
apostle  when  he  says,  "For  as  many  of  you 
as  have  been  baptised  into  Christ,  have  put 
on  Christ.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek; 
there  is  neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  nei- 
ther male  nor  female :  for  ye  are  all  one  in 
Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are 
ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to 
the  promise."  Gal.  iii.  27 — 29.  But  this  ex- 
tension of  the  rite  to  females,  is  no  evidence 
that  infants,  both  male and  female  are  to  be 
excluded. 


SECTION  V. 

I  now  come  to  my  5th  argument  in  fa- 
vour of  the  unity  of  the  church  ;  and  this  is 
drawn  from  the  express  declarations  of  scrip- 
ture. 

The  first  I  shall  mention,  is  the  declara- 
tion of  our  Saviour  to  the  Jews.  "  The  king- 
dom of  God  shall  be  taken  from  you,  and  giv- 
en to  a  nation  bringing  forth  the  fruits  there- 


144 

if"  Mat.  xxi.  43.  The  phrase  "  kingdom  of 
God,"  or  "kingdom  of  heaven"  is  peculiar 
to  the  New-Testament,  and  is  used  in  one 
or  other  of  the  three  following  senses,  viz. 

1 .  For  the  kingdom  of  glory,  or  the  place  of 
eternal  happiness.  See  Luke,  xiii.  28.  "  Ye 
shall  see  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  all 
the  prophets  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  and 
you  yourselves  thrust  out,"  John.  iii.  5. 
"Except  a  man  be  born  again,  &c." 

2.  For  the  kingdom  of  grace.  In  this  sense 
it  is  applied  either  to  an  actual  state  of  grace 
or  the  visible  profession  of  it.  See  Mat. 
vi.  33.  "  But  seek  ye  first  the  kingdom  of 
God,  &c."    Mar.  iv.  11.x.  25.  Rom.  xiv.  17. 

3.  For  the  visible  church  ;  and  most  fre- 
quently, as  it  exists  under  the  gospel  dis- 
pensation. See  Mar.  iv.  26.  "  So  is  the 
kingdom  of  God  as  if  a  man  should  cast  seed 
into  the  ground,  &c." — John  the  Baptist,our 
Saviour  and  his  apostles,  used  the  term  in 
special  reference  to  the  gospel  dispensation, 
when  they  said  u  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is 
at  hand."     Mat.  iii.  2.  iv.  17.  x.  7.  &c. 

That  the  "kingdom  of  God"  means  the 
visible  church,  in  the  passage  under  consid- 
eration, is  evident,  from  the  nature  of  the 
case.  It  cannot  mean  the  kingdom  of  glory, 
nor  of  grace ;  for  neither  of  these,  did  the 
unbelieving  Jews  possess.  Nor  can  it  mean 
the  gospel  church,  for  that  was  not  yet  or- 
ganized; and  even  admitting  that  it  had 
been,  those  unbelievers  did  not  possess  a 
standing  in  it  \    and  therefore  it  could  not 


145 

be  taken  from  them.  The  plain  import  of 
the  passage  is  this :  "  The  visible  church 
which  is  now  composed  of  you  Jews,  shall 
be  taken  from  you,  on  account  of  your  im- 
penitence and  unbelief,  and  shall  be  given 
to,  or  set  up  among,  the  believing  gentiles." 
And  what  confirms  this,  is  the  connexion  of 
the  passage.  It  forms  the  conclusion,  or  ap- 
plication, of  our  Saviour's  parable  of  the 
vineyard,  which  was  let  out  to  husbandmen. 
The  foundation  of  this  parable,  is  evidently- 
taken  from  the  5th  of  Isaiah ;  where  the 
Lord  declares,  that  the  house  of  Israel  is  his 
vineyard.  Comp.  Isa.  v.  1 — 7.  and  Mat. 
xxi.  33 — 46.  In  the  conduct  of  the  hus- 
bandmen towards  the  servants  of  the  house- 
holder, our  Saviour  represents  the  treat- 
ment, which  the  prophets  of  the  Lord  had 
received,  from  the  Jews  ;  and  by  the  slay- 
ing of  the  son,  he  plainly  foretold  his  own 
crucifixion,  by  their  hands.  Hence  he  de- 
clares "  The  kingdom  of  God  shall  be  ta- 
ken from  you,  &c." — Here  then  are  two  im- 
portant points  decided  by  this  passage. 

1.  The  kingdom  of  God,  or  the  visible 
church,  is  essentially  the  same  under  both  dis- 
pensations. For  it  is  the  very  same  vineyard* 
that  is  taken  from  the  wicked  husband- 
men, which  is  given  to  others:  and  it  is  the 
same  kingdom  of  God,  that  is  taken  from  the 
unbelieving  Jews,  and  given  to  the  believing 
Gentiles. 

2.  The  Jews  forfeited  it,  because  they 
tlid  not  bring  forth  the  appropriate  fruits  of 

13 


146 

the  kingdom  ;  that  is,  the  same  fruits  which 
those  are  to  bring  forth  to  whom  the  king- 
dom is  given.  Now  with  what  sort  of  a  face 
can  it  be  asserted,  that  real  holiness,  repen- 
tance and  faith  were  not  required  of  the 
Jewish  church,  when  our  Saviour  declares 
that  the  kingdom  was  taken  from  them,  be- 
cause they  did  bring  forth  these  very  fruits  ? 

The  next  passage  to  which  1  will  refer 
you,  is  Acts  ii.  39.  Here  Peter,  in  the  com- 
mencement of  public  labour  under  the  new 
dispensation,  in  preaching  to  the  multitude 
and  urging  them  to  the  exercise  of  repent- 
ance and  faith,  as  a  motive  and  encourage- 
ment to  this  duty,  quotes  and  applies  the 
original  promise  made  to  Abraham,  in  all 
its  former  latitude,  and  with  an  enlargement 
which  it  had  just  received  "  For  the  promise 
is  unto  you  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all 
that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call" 

Leb.  Dr.  Gill  says  "  there  is  not  the  least 
mention  made  in  this  text  of  Abraham's  cov- 
enant, or  of  any  promise  made  to  him,  giv- 
ing his  infant  seed  a  right  to  circumcision, 
and  still  less  to  baptism."  And  he  further 
observes  that  "  the  promise  here,  be  it  what 
it  may,  is  not  observed  as  giving  a  right  or 
claim  to  any  ordinance  ;  but  as  an  encoura- 
ging motive  to  persons  in  distress,  under  a 
sense  of  sin,  to  repent  of  it  and  declare  their 
repentance,  and  yield  a  voluntary  subjec- 
tion to  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  when  they 
might  hope  that  remission  of  sins  would  be 
applied  to  them,  &c*" 


J  47 

Eug.  That  the  Apostle  held  forth  this 
promise,  as  a  motive  to  repentance,  I  have 
already  stated.  But  the  question  is,  what 
is  the  promise  that  contained  this  encou- 
ragement ?  We  have  Dr.  Gill's  declaration 
that  "  it  is  not  any  promise  made  to  Abra- 
ham :"  but  you  will  excuse  me  for  saying, 
I  have  seen  too  much  of  the  fallibility  of  that 
man  in  his  writings,  to  build  my  faith  on  his 
assertions.  The  Apostle  evidently  speaks 
of  the  promise  as  one  with  which  his  hearers, 
at  least  the  Jewish  part  of  them,  were  fami- 
liar. Take  a  view  of  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  and  you  can  easily  discover  the  al- 
lusion. Peter  was  preaching  to  a  promis- 
cuous multitude  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  See 
ver.  9 — 11.  His  discourse  was  principally 
addressed  to  the  former.  Ver.  14 — 36.  He 
recounts  the  gracious  promises  concerning 
the  Saviour  predicted  by  the  holy  pro- 
phets— declares  to  them  the  fulfilment  of 
those  promises;  and  then  charges  them,  in 
the  most  direct  terms,  with  the  enormous 
crime,  of  having  crucified  the  Lord  of  glo- 
ry. It  was  this  that  "  pricked  them  in  their 
hearts,"  and  caused  them  to  cry  out  "Men 
and  brethren,  what  shall  we  do  ?"  Peter,  per- 
ceiving them  to  be  under  pungent  convic- 
tion of  sin,  endeavours  to  exhibit  the  rem- 
edy. "  Repent,  says  he,  and  be  baptized  eve- 
ry one  of  you  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christy  for 
the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the 
gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  And  as  an  encour- 
agement to  this  duty   he  adds,    "  For  the 


148 

promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children.1" 
As  if  he  had  said,  "  Though  you  have  hith- 
erto rejected  the  hope  of  Israel,  and  in  con- 
sequence of  your  unbelief  have  been  cast  out 
of  the  church  ;  yea,  though  you  have  stain- 
ed your  hands  with  his  innocent  blood,  yet 
your  case  is  not  hopeless.  If  you  will  now 
repent  of  your  sins  and  embrace  him  by 
faith,  the  same  promise  in  its  original  lati- 
tude, which  God  made  to  your  fathers,  shall 
be  extended  to  you  and  your  children. >* 
But  Peter,  in  his  solicitude  for  "  his 
brethren  according  to  the  flesh,"  does  not 
forget  the  other  part  of  his  audience,  which 
were  not  Jews.  Therefore  in  applying  this 
promise  to  the  Jews,  he  takes  care  to  state 
the  extension  which  it  had  received  in  the 
change  of  dispensation.  Hence  he  declares, 
that  it  is  not,  as  formerly,  confined  to  one 
nation.  "  The  middle  wall  of  partition  be- 
ing broken  down"  the  promise  is  extended 
"  to  as  many  of  them,  that  are  afar  off  (that 
is,  gentiles)  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
But  what  puts  it  beyond  all  dispute  that  Pe- 
ter here  refers  to  the  original  covenant, 
made  with  Abraham,  is  his  declaration  to  the 
Jews  in  his  very  next  sermon,  in  the  porch 
of  the  temple.  "  Ye  are  the  children  of  the 
prophets,  and  of  the  covenant  which  God  made 
nith  our  fathers,  saying  unto  Abraham,  And 
in  thy  seed  shall  edl  the  kindreds  of  the  earth 
be  blessed."  Acts  iii.  25.  This  he  introduces 
in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  former  case* 
viz,  as  a  motive  to  repentance  and  faith  i 


149 

and  it  is  a  plain  proof  that  the  Ahrahamic 
covenant  remains  unaltered.  If  not,  or  if 
that  covenant  had  respect  merely  to  the 
possession  of  Canaan  and  other  temporal 
blessings,  what  connexion  could  it  have  had 
with  a  gospel  sermon  on  repentance  an3 
faith;  or  what  encouragement  could  it  have 
afforded  to  the  exercise  of  those  graces? 

Leb.  But  the  Apostle  quotes  nothing 
more  than  the  promise  which  referred  to  the 
Saviour. 

Eug.  True;  but  he  tells  the  Jews  that 
they  are  "the  children  of  the  covenant,*'  in 
which,  that  promise  was  contained  ;  and  he 
speaks  of  it  as  presenting  special  encour- 
agement to  them,  to  exercise  faith  in  Christ : 
because  by  that  covenant  divine  grace  was 
to  be  communicated  from  generation  to  gen- 
eration. He  regarded  them  in  the  same  light 
as  St.  Paul  did,  when  he  says  "  they  are 
beloved  for  the  fathers'  sake."  In  no  oth- 
er point  of  view,  could  an  allusion  to  that 
covenant  afford  them  any  special  encourage- 
merit. 

Leb.  But  does  not  Peter  evidently  limit 
the  promise  by  the  concluding  clause  "Even 
as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call  ?" 
Does  not  this  "  plainly  prove  that  the  per- 
son?, whether  Jews  or  Gentiles,  must  he  ef- 
Jeclually  called"  before  they  can  claim  the 
promise  ?  And  does  not  this,  confine  it  to  a- 
dults? 

Eug.  That  all  persons,*  whether  adults  or 
infants,  must  be  effectually  called  or  renew* 
13* 


I. -30 

fed  in  heart,  in  order  to  go  to  heaven,  no- 
body denies.  The  question,  therefore,  does 
not  respect  the  qualification,  but  the  manner 
in  which  God  gives  this  qualification ;  whe- 
ther in  a  covenant-way  as  formerly  or  not. 
That  the  promise  is  limited  to  believers,  in 
distinction  from  the  unbelieving  world,  I 
cheerfully  admit.  But  that  it  is  limited  to 
believers  in  distinction  from  their  infant 
seed,  is  not  even  intimated  in  the  text;  but 
the  contrary  is  most  explicitly  declared. 
*'  For  the  promise  is  unto  you  and  to  your 
children. "  This,  as  I  have  already  obser- 
ved, was  addressed  to  the  Jews.  Peter  tells 
them  that  the  blessings  of  the  original  cov- 
enant, which  included  believing  parents  and 
their  children,  are  still  presented  to  them. 
But  this  promise  is  not  confined  to  them,  as 
formerly.  The  same  is  now  extended  to 
the  Gentiles  ;  so  that  as  many  of  them  as 
are  effectually  called,  become  heirs  to  the 
promise  which  the  Lord  had  made  of  old,  to 
believing  parents  including  their  children. 

If  this  is  not  the  true  import  of  the  pas- 
sage— if  the  Apostle  really  intended  to  limit 
the  promise  to  adults,  both  of  Jews  and  Gen- 
tiles, pray  why  did  he  say  any  thing  at  all 
about  children  ?  By  omitting  that  word, 
some  plausibility  might  be  attached  to  your 
interpretation.  Hence,  some  of  your  peo- 
ble,  sensible  of  the  weakness  of  their  argu- 
ment, while  children  are  included  in  the 
text,  have  undertaken  to  shew  that  the  ori- 
ginal word  does  not  mean  "  little  children*'* 


1 31 

but  "  posterity. "  And  what  is  the  amount 
of  this  wonderful  and  learned  criticism  ? — 
Why  simply  this,  that  the  evangelist,  in  re- 
cording this  discourse,  quoted  the  original 
promise,  in  as  nearly  the  same  terms  as  the 
Greek  language  could  enable  him  to  ex- 
press. "The  promise  is  unto  you  and  to 
your  children"  or  posterity,  or  offspring,  or 
seed.  Take  which  of  the  terms,  you  please, 
how  can  you  exclude  the  idea  of  infants  ?  If 
I  were  a  Baptist,  T  should  exceedingly  regret 
that  any  of  my  brethren  had  ever  meddled 
with  this  term.  The  criticism,  instead  of 
helping  their  cause,  only  exposes  its  weak- 
ness. This  textthen  in  spite  of  all  the  glos- 
ses that  have  been  put  upon  it,  is  an  explicit 
declaration  that, though  anew  dispensation 
had  commenced,  the  original  constitution 
of  the  church  remained  unaltered. 

Leo.  But  does  not  St.  Paul  expressly  de- 
clare in  Heb.  viii.  7 — 13.  that,  agreeably  to 
the  prophecy  of  Jeremiah  "the  old  cov- 
enant is  done  away  and  a  new  one  institu- 
ted." 

JEug.  He  does  indeed  endeavour  to  con- 
vince the  Hebrews,  that  the  dispensation  of 
the  covenant  is  changed.  But  when  he 
speaks  of  the  "old  covenant"  which  is  done 
away,  he  tells  us  distinctly  what  he  means 
by  it,  viz.  the  covenant  which  God  made 
with  their  fathers  when  he  led  them  out  of 
Egypt — the  ceremonial  law.  Ver.  9.  Only 
take  into  view  the  point  that  the  Apostle 
was  labouring  with  his  countrymen,  and 


152 

you  cannot  mistake  his  object.  He  was  not 
endeavouring  to  prove  that  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  was  done  away;  for  this  would 
have  been  to  contradict  himself.  In  the  villi 
chapter  lie  had  declared,  that  God  confirmed 
his  promise  to  Abraham  by  an  oath,  "That 
by  two  immutable  things  in  which  it  was  im- 
possihle  for  God  to  lie  WE,  (we  christians) 
we,  who  have  fled  for  refuge  to  the  gospel 
hope,  might  have  strong  consolation'''  Lea- 
ving inspiration  out  of  the  question,  it  is 
scarcely  to  be  expected  that  St.  Paul  would 
so  soon  forget  himself,  as  to  turn  about  and 
argue  against  the  Abrahamiccovenant,  which 
he  had  just  before  declared  to  be  the  foun- 
dation of  the  christian  hope.  His  manifest 
object  in  the  viiith  chapter,  was  to  convince 
the  Jews,  who  were  still  attached  to  their 
former  mode  of  worship,  that  the  ceremonial 
law  was  completely  annulled.  And  he 
quotes  the  words  of  the  prophet  merely  to 
prove  that  the  former  dispensation  was  not 
designed  to  be  perpetual  :  for  that  prophe- 
cy does  not  refer  to  the  commencement  of 
the  christian  dispensation,  but  to  a  period 
far  subsequent  to  it;  even  to  that  blessed 
day  when  "they  shall  not  teach  every  man 
his  neighbour,  and  every  man  his  brother, 
saying,  Know  the  Lord,  for  all  shall  know 
me  from  the  least  to  the  greatest."  Comp. 
Jer.  xxxi.  31 — 34.  and  Heb.  viii.  8 — 12. 
Here  then  it  is  evident,  notwithstanding  all 
the  clamour  of  your  denomination  about  this 
chapter,  that  there  is  not  the  smallest  allu* 


153 

sion  in  it,  to  the  Abrahamic  covenant:  it 
has  respect  solely  to  the  ceremonial  law,  of 
"  covenant  of  Sinai." 

In  the  same  manner  the  Apostle  speak& 
of  that  covenant  in  his  epistle  to  the  Gala- 
tians;  where  he  makes  a  clear  distinction 
between  it  and  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
under  the  figure  of  Abraham's  two  sons, 
"  the  one  of  a  bond-maid  and  the  other  of  a 
free  woman.  Which  things,  says  he,  are  an 
allegory,  for  these  are  the  two  covenants,  the 
one  from  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  an- 
swereth  to  Jerusalem,  which  now  is,  and  is 
in  bondage  with  her  children.  But  Jerusa- 
lem which  is  above,  is  free,  which  is  the  mo- 
ther of  us  all.  Now  we  brethren,  as  Isaac 
was,  are  the  children  of  promise.  But  as 
then,  he  that  was  born  after  the  flesh  perse- 
cuted him  that  was  born  after  the  Spirit, 
even  so  is  it  now."  Gal.  iv.  Here,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  Apostle,  instead  of  making  a 
distinction  between  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant and  the  constitution  of  the  Christian 
church,  draws  the  line  between  that  cove- 
nant and  the  ceremonial  law,  given  from 
Mount  Sinai:  and  hence  he  declares  that 
"  WE,  (christians)  as  Isaac  was, are  t tie  chil* 
dren  of  promise."  This  is  an  expression 
similar  to  that  of  St.  Peter  on  the  day 
of  pentecost  "  For  the  promise  is  unto  you 
and  to  your  children." 

Leo.  But  Sir,  "  a  rational  comment  on 
this  paragraph  must  destroy  your  argu- 
ment, unless  Sinai  and  Jerusalem  are  the 
same." 


154 

Eug.  What  that  "  rational  comment5*  is, 
I  cannot  tell,  as  1  have  never  heard  it;  nor 
is  it  a  matter  of  any  consequence,  if  its  force 
depends  on  Sinai  and  Jerusalem's  not  being 
the  same  ;  for  the  Apostle  expressly  de- 
clares that  they  are  the  same.  "For  this 
Agar  is  Mount  Sinai  in  Arabia,  and  answer- 
eth  to  Jerusalem  which  kow  is."  Jerusalem 
or  the  Jewish  nation  as  it  then  existed  hav- 
ing been  cut  off  or  cast  out  for  unbelief, 
he  says,  is  in  bondage ;  and  therefore  he  con- 
siders them,  in  their  excommunicated  state,  as 
answering  to  the  figure  of  the  bondmaid  ; 
while  those  who  believed,  both  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  "  are,  as  Isaac  was,  the  children 
of  promise,"  And  then  in  view  of  the  treat- 
ment which  they  received  from  the  unbe- 
lieving Jews,  he  adds,  "  But  as  then,  he  that 
was  born  after  the  flesh,  persecuted  him 
that  was  born  after  the  Spirit,  even  so  is  it 
now." 

Leb.  But  if  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
churches  are  the  same,  then  "  members  of 
t he  church  persecuted  the  members  of  the 
church." 

Eug.  In  view  of  all  that  has  been  said,  can 
you  be  serious,  Leb  be  us,  in  that  remark  ? 
Vea,  can  you  read  I  he  passage  last  quoted, 
and  be  serious  in  advancing  the  idea?  Were 
the  Jews  members  of  the  church  after  they 
had  been  excommunicated  by  Christ  him- 
self. And  does  not  the  apostle  expressly 
declare  that  it  is  in  allusion  to  her  then  ex- 
isting state,  {Jerusalem  which  now  is  J  that 


153 

he  considers  her  as  answering  to  Sinai  and 
the  bond  maid.  Is  there  any  absurdity  in 
all  this  ?  If  there  is,  you  must  settJe  it  with 
St.  Paul.  For  my  part,  I  consider  it  as  no- 
thing strange  to  find  excommunicated  mem- 
bers, and  even  whole  churches  who,  through 
a  superstitious  attachment  to  external J orms, 
have  rejected  "  the  foundation  of  the  pro- 
phets and  apostles,"  persecuting  the  true 
church  of  Jesus  Christ. 

I  shall  now  direct  your  attention  to  Rom. 
xith.  Please  to  take  the  bible,  and  read  from 
the  15th  to  the  25th  verse.  Upon  this  pas- 
sage you  will  indulge  me  in  the  following 
remarks : 

1.  By  the  olive  tree  is  evidently  intended 
the  Jewish  church,  "  a  fat  olive  tree,  with  a 
holy  root'''  Such  it  was  when  it  was  plant- 
ed, and  such  the  Lord  required  that  the 
branches  should  be.  "For  if  the  first  fruit 
be  holy;  the  lump  also:  and  if  the  root  be 
holy,  so  the  branches."  This  he  required 
of  all  the  branches  or  members;  and  there- 
fore, when  the  great  body  of  that  church 
became  corrupt,  and  the  measure  of  their 
iniquity  was  full,  he  came  forth  in  judgment 
to  cut  them  orT  as  unworthy  of  a  standing  in 
a  church  which  he  designed  to  be  holy. 

Leb.  Dr.  Gill  says  that  "by  the  good  olive 
tree  is  not  meant  the  Jewish  church-state, 
which  was  abolished  by  Christ,|with  all  the  pe- 
culiar ordinancesof  it;  and  the  believingGen- 
tiles  were  never  ingrafted  into  it ;  the  axe  has 
been  laid  to  the  root  of  that  old  Jewish  stock, 


156 

and  it  is  entirely  cat  down,  and  no  ingrafture 
Is  made  upon  it.  But — by  it  is  meant  the 
gbsjpfel  church-state,  in  its  first  foundation, 
consisting  of  Jews  that  believed,  out  of  which 
were  left  the  Jews  who  believed  not  in 
Christ,  and  who  are  the  branches  broken 
off;  into  which  church  state  the  Gentiles 
were  ingrafted." 

JEug.  That  the  "  olive  tree"  does  mean 
the  Jewish  church,  is  evident  from  the  con- 
nexion as  well  as  other  parts  of  the  scrip- 
ture. In  the  two  chapters  immediately  pre- 
ceding, the  apostle  is  treating  distinctly  of 
the  Jewish  church.  And  hence,  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  xith  chap,  he  inquires 
44  Hath  God  cast  away  his  people  which  he 
foreknewT?"  He  asserts  the  contrary,  and 
presents  himself  as  an  evidence.  "  For  1  al- 
so am  an  Israelite  of  the  seed  of  Abraham, 
&c."  He  declares  that  the  Lord  had  always 
had  a  holy  seed  among  that  people,  even  in 
the  darkest  seasons  :  and  although  the  great 
body  of  them  had  been  recently  rejected, 
yet  even  in  that  act  of  judgment  he  had  still 
preserved  a  remnant.  He  then  proceeds  to 
describe  the  manner  in  which  that  had  been 
done  ;  and  for  this  purpose,  introduced  the 
figure  of  the  "  olive  tree  ;"  a  figure  by  which 
the  Lord  himself  had  distinguished  the  Jew- 
ish church.     "  The  Lord  called  thy  name  a 

GREEN    OLIVE-TREE,    FAIR,    AND    OF     GOODLY 
FRUIT THE   BRANCHES    OF  IT    ARE   BROKEN  ; 

for  the  Lord  of  hosts  hath  pronounced  evil  a- 
gainst  thee,  &c.*'  Jer.  xi.  1.6,  17.    Read  this 


157 

passage  in  its  connexion,  and  then  tell  me, 
Lebbeus,  can  you  doubt  that  the  apostle 
had  his  eye  on  this  very  prophesy  when  he 
wrote  the  xith  chapter  to  the  Romans? — 
Moreover,  to  suppose  that  by  the  olive-tree 
is  meant  the  Christian,  in  distinction  from 
the  Jewish  church,  is  to  charge  the  apostle 
with  the  grossest  perversion  of  language. — 
This  you  plainly  perceive  from  the  quota- 
tion you  have  made  from  Dr.  Gill.    He  say? 
that  the  branches  being  "  broken  off"  means 
"  LEFT  OUT."    But  does  any  man  believe 
that  these  phrases  are  synonymous?  Suppose 
I  should  tell  you,  pointing  to  the  branches  of 
a  tree  lying;  on  the  ground,  that  they  were 
<l  broken  off"  from  a  certain  tree  when  it  was 
grafted.    Suppose  you    should    afterwards 
ascertain  the  fact,  that  they  never  were  at- 
tached to  it;  and  upon  asking  an  explana- 
tion of  me,  I  should  answer    "  O !  I  only 
meant  that  they  were  left  out  of  that  tree 
when  it  was  grafted."    Would  this  be  satis- 
factory ? — Or,  suppose  T  should  inform  you 
that  such  and  such  persons  had  been  "  cut 
or  broken  off"  from  my  church,  and  when 
you  had  learned  that  they  never  belonged 
to  it,  I  should  tell  you,  "I  only  meant  that 
they  were  left  out  of  my  church  when  it  was 
organized."    Would  you  not  call  this  anin- 
excu  sable  perversion  of  language,  or  by  the 
harsher  name  of  deception  ?    Of  this  was  the 
apostle  guilty,  if  by  the  olive-tree,  he  meant 
the  gospel-church. — I  shall  only  add  that  the 
"words  of  John  the  Baptist,  which  Dr.  Gill 
14 


153 

applies  to  this  case,  have  not  the  most  re- 
mote allusion  to  the  "  olive  tree."  John's 
words  are,  "  And  now  ai^o  the  axe  is  laid 
unto  the  root  of  the  trees:  therefore  every 
tree  which  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is 
hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fire."  Mat  iii. 
10.  He  does  not  speak  of  the  Jewish  church 
in  their  collective  capacity  under  the  figure 
of  a  single  tree,  as  the  apostle  does  ;  but  of 
them  severally,  as  trees  in  the  vineyard.  Nor 
does  he  say  that  all  the  trees  are  to  be  cut 
down  and  the  vineyard  destroyed,  but  only 
such  as  do  not  bear  good  fruit.  The  analo- 
gy between  the  two  passages  is  manifestly 
this. — In  the  one  case,  the  Jewish  church  is 
considered  under  the  figure  of  a  vineyard,  in 
which  many  trees  are  growing ;  and  the  re- 
jection of  the  unbelieving  Jews  is  represent- 
ed, by  the  cutting  down  of  those  trees  which 
do  not  bring  forth  good  fruit.  In  the  other 
case,  that  church  appears  under  the  figure 
of  a  single  tree  ;  and  the  rejection  of  the  un- 
believers is  represented  by  the  cutting  off 
of  the  unfruitful  branches.  So  far,  there- 
fore, from  proving  that  the  Jewish  church 
was  entirely  destroyed,  the  words  of  John 
confirm  the  doctrine  that  a  part  only  were 
cast  out. 

Having,  therefore,  shewn  that  by  the  "o- 
live  tree"  is  meant  the  Jewish  church,  I  ob- 
serve, 

2.  That  some  of  the  natural  branches,  in 
consequence  of  their  unfruitfulness,  are  bro- 
ken off,  and  others  taken  from  the  wild  olive 


159 

are  ingrafted  in  their  room.  This,  you  and 
1  both  agree,  represents  the  rejection  of  the 
Jews  and  the  calling  of  the  Gentiles,  for  so 
the  apostle  himself  explains  it.  Now  ob- 
serve, this  act  is  represented,  not  by  culling 
down,  or  plucking  up  "  the  good  olive  tree" 
and  planting  a  new  one  in  its  stead,  (a  great 
deal  better  than  "good:")  but "  by  breaking 
off  (not  all,  but)  some  of  the  natural  branch- 
es, and  grafting  in  branches  taken  from  the 
wild  olive  tree,  among  those  natural  branch- 
es" which  remained;  by  which  operation 
they  are  made  to  "  partake  with  them  of  the 
root  and  fatness  of  the  good  olive  tree." — 
If  the  apostle  had  ransacked  the  whole  king- 
dom of  nature,  he  would  not  have  found 
a  more  striking  figure  ;  or  had  he  possessed 
the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  he  could  not  have 
handled  it  in  a  more  dexterous  manner,  to 
represent  the  unity  of  the  church  under 
both  dispensations.  The  Jews  are  called 
the  natural  branches,  because  they  were  the 
natural  descendants  from  the  original  stock. 
The  good  olive  tree  with  its  holy  root  was 
planted  in  the  calling  of  Abraham;  and  his 
posterity  are  therefore  the  natural  branch- 
es, "  to  whom  pa  iaineth  the  adoption,  and  the 
glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving  of  the 
law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises  ; 
whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom,  as  concern- 
ing the  flesh,  Christ  came.'''  Rom.  ix.  4,  5. — 
Some  of  these  were  broken  off  because  of 
unbelief  (How  then  could  a  standing  in  that 
church  consist  with  the  want  of  faith  ?)  And 


160 

those  who  are  taken  from  the  wild  olive 
[  G entiles]  are,  by  faith  grafted,  in  among  the 
remaining  natural  branches,  or  believing 
Jews;  and  both  together  partake  of  the 
root  and  fatness  of  the  good  olive  tree. — 
Sow,  Lehbeus,  1  wish  to  know  what  more 
conclusive  evidence  can  be  given  or  desi- 
red, that  the  ancient  church  was  not  dissolv- 
ed when  the  dispensation  of  the  covenant 
was  changed  ? 

But  let  us,  for  a  moment,  suppose  in  di- 
rect opposition  to  this  testimony  that  it  was 
dissolved:    Pray,  tell   me,    when  the   new 
church  was  organized  ?  Where  in  the  New- 
Testament,  have  we  any  account  that  the 
Lord  entered   into  covenant,  in  a  formal 
manner,  with  any  person  or  number  of  per- 
sons and  constituted  them  into  a  Christian 
church  I  You  may  say,  it  was  implied  in  the 
baptism  of  John  ;  or  in  the  institution  of  the 
Lord's  supper;  or  in  some  other  transaction 
of  our  Lord  or  his  apostles;  but  this  is  not 
sufficient.     Such  an  important  transaction 
as  the  organization  of  a  church  on  earth, 
(according  to  your  scheme,  the  first  organ- 
ization of  a  real  church]  must  have  some- 
thing more  than  IMPLlEDevidence.  Here 
i<  the  place  for  "explicit  warrant/'     If  the 
Jewish  church  were  only  a  type  of  the  Chris- 
tian church,  we  might  reasonably  expect  to 
see  the  substance  exceed  the  shadow  in  eve- 
ry respect.     But  where  is  there  an  act  of 
covenanting   in  the   New-Testament,    that 
l weeds,  of  even  equals,  the  splendour  ind 


m 

glory  of  the  original  covenant  I  Surely  tlu 
lyne  ought  not  (d  eclipse  the  antitype, 

But  the  unity  of  the  church  under  both 
dispensations,  as  it  has  been  already  proved, 
and  as  represented  by  the  figure  of  the  "o 

li^ c- 1 1  tu,"   adonis   a    nad\    solution   of  all 

these  difficulties  j  or  rather,  precludes  them 
altogether.    The  olive-tree  planted  in  A 

lnaliam,    and    cultivated    with    divine    tare, 

>till  lives  and  flourishes.  When  Christ  came 
and  was  rejected  by  the  greater  pari  dfthe 
Jewish  nation,  all  the  unbelieving  pari  were 
w  broken  off"  or  excommunicated,    Those 

who  received  him  cont  inned  loiuiupv  their 

standing  as  before.  Those  who  believed 
on  him  among  the  Gentiles,  were  received 
and  incorporated  with  the  believing  Jews 
that  remained.  Thus,  "the  middle  wall  of 
partition  between  Jew  and  Gentile  was  bro- 
ken  down,   and  both   became   one  in  Christ 

Jesus.'1  And  thus  the  church  progressed 
through  thf  change  of  dispensation,  without, 
the  least  alteration  in  her  original  constitu- 
tion. In  further  confirmation  of  these  \  iews, 
you  will  observe, 

:*.  That  the  natural  branches,  if  they  a- 
bide  not  in  unbelief,  are  t<>  be  grafted  in 
agairi into  THEIH  OWN  otivctret.  Here 
it  is  expressly  declared,  that  when  thf  Jews 
an*  reclaimed  from  their  infidelity,  they 
are  to  be  grafted  into  the  original  stork 
from  which  they  were  broken  oil*.  Hut  when 
this  desirable  event,  for  which  we  arc  daily 
prayltlg,  takes  place,  are  they  to  form  a  sej> 
II 


1&2 

arate  community  on  the  basis  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant?  No  !  they  are  to  be  gath- 
ered with  the  fulness  of  the  Gentiles  and 
constitute  but  "one  sheep/old  under  one 
shepherd"  How  then  can  they  be  grafted 
into  the  original  olive-tree,  unless  that  is 
the  foundation  of  the  Christian  church?  The 
truth  of  this  has  been  realized  in  many  in- 
stances already.  Many  of  those  who,  for 
their  rejection  of  the  Lord  of  glory,  were  ex- 
communicated from  the  Jewish  church,  were 
afterwards  brought  to  repentance  under  the 
preaching  of  the  apostles,  and  were  imme- 
diately added  to  the  Christian  church.  And 
so  it  has  been  in  every  succeeding  age, 
whenever  any  of  that  blinded  people  have 
had  their  eyes  opened  to  "  look  upon  him 
whom  their  fathers  pierced." 

Leh.  Well  Sir,  this  last  observation  of 
yours  completely  overthrows  one  remark 
which  I  have  lately  met  with  in  one  of  ovr 
writers,  and  which  I  acknowledge  1  thought 
had  a  great  deal  of  weight  in  it.  He  ob- 
serves with  respect  to  the  conversion  of  the 
Jews  under  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles, 
that  the  sameness  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
church,  involves  the  absurdity  of  "  members 
of  the  church  added  to  the  church."  But  if 
they  had  been  excommunicated  under  the 
former  dispensation,  I  see  no  inconsistency 
or  absurdity  in  saying,  that  when  they  belie- 
ved, "they  were  added  to  the  church." 

JEug.  Very  true,  Lebbeus ;  and  the  same 
Temark  exposes  the  weakness  and  absurdity 


of  several  pages  of  the  same  writer,  (whose 
discourse  has  fallen  into  my  hands,)  which 
consist  of  bold  assertion,  and,  what  I  call, 
impious  raillery,  without  the  shadow  of  ar- 
gument. Such  as  "a  flat  nose  or  crooked 
back  disqualifying  a  man  for  the  high  priest- 
hood"— "sprinkling  a  little  water  in  the 
face" — "the  Jewish  church  persecuting  her 
own  members — and  crucifying  the  High 
Priest  of  our  profession" — "Jesus  Christ, 
an  interloper."  Such  insinuations  are  as 
irrelevant  as  they  are  uncandid  and  un- 
christian.— But  Lebbeus,  I  now  appeal  to 
your  candour,  whether  the  representation 
which  I  have  made  of  the  "olive  tree"  is 
not  the  fair  and  natural  import  of  the  pas- 
sage. 

Leb.  Why  Sir,  I  must  acknowledge  that 
it  has  that,  appearance  At  least,  lam  not 
prepared  to  controvert  it  myself.  ■  But  if 
you  will  indulge  me,  1  should  be  pleased 
to  read  you  an  interpretation  of  that 
passage,  oat  of  a  pamphlet  which  I  have  al- 
ready alluded  to;  and  then  I  should  be 
glad  to  hear  your  remarks  upon  it. 

Eug.   Please  to  read. 

Leb.  (Reads.)  "This  passage  is  so  fami- 
liar as  to  render  a  repetition  of  it  in  this 
place  unnecessary,  &c.  This  argument  has 
been  often  used  and  as  often  refuted,  but 
lest  some  think  it  conclusive,  it  shall  re- 
ceive due  attention.  First,  then,  the  Jews 
were   broken  off.      But  from  what  ?    not 


16* 

from  their  own  national  church,  which  stiM 
remained  and  their  membership  good,  If 
both— " 

Eug.  Hold,  Lebbeus — 

Leb.  Let  me  go  through  before  you  re- 
mark. 

Eug.  No  Sir!  When  a  man  undertakes 
to  argue,  and  begs  the  question  at  the  out- 
set, it  is  altogether  needless  to  hear  him  any 
further.  Your  author  sets  out  to  explain 
away  this  passage,  so  as  to  prove  that  the 
Jewish  and  Christian  churches  are  not  the 
same ;  and  in  his  very  first  sentence,  takes  it 
for  granted  that  they  are  not  the  same  ;  for 
be  asserts  that  the  unbelieving  Jews,  whom 
the  apostle  declares  are  "  broken  off  from 
their  own  olive  tree,"  were  still  members  of 
the  Jewish  church.  This,  however,  is  asser- 
tion and  not  "logical  reasoning  ;"  and  it 
might  be  repeated  a  thousand  times  without 
proving  any  thing,  except  the  imbecility 
of  its  author. 

That  the  argument,  founded  on  this  pas- 
sage, has  been  "  often  used"''  to  prove  the 
sameness  of  the  church,  I  know.  But  that 
it  has  been  "  as  often  refuted"  or  that  it  has 
met  this  fate  in  a  single  instance,  I  do  not 
know;  I  have  read  and  heard  a  great  many 
Baptist  comments  upon  it,  and  I  never  found 
but  one, that  was  in  the  smallest  degree  cred- 
itable to  the  intellect  of  the  author. 

Leb.  Pray,  what  was  that  ? 

Eug.  One  of  your  ministers  introduced 
this  passage  into  a  sermon  which  he  was 


165 

preaching  on  baptism,  and  after  reciting  it 
at  full  length,  remarked,  "  No  man  can  give 
an  interpretation  of  this  passage  so  as  to  fa- 
vour infant-member  ship,  but  what  I  can  bring 
against  it  unanswerable  objections  "  and  then 
immediately  proceeded  to  notice  another 
text.  One  of  his  hearers,  at  the  close  of  the 
service,  complimented  him  on  the  ability  of 
his  discourse,  by  remarking  that  "  he  consid- 
ered his  comment  on  the  x\th  of  Romans,  the 
most  able  part  of  it." — Now  had  your  au- 
thor disposed  of  the  passage  in  the  same 
way,  instead  of  professing  to  give  it  "  due 
attention,"  although  it  might  not  have  had 
half  the  show  of"  logical  reasoning,"  yet  it 
would  have  carried  just  as  much  weight  in 
the  view  of  those  who  are  in  the  habit  of 
reasoning  ;  and  might  have  answered  the 
same  purpose  with  those  "  who  do  not  think 
for  themselves,"  but  believe  it  is  so,  because 
their  minister  says  so. — But  after  all,  doea 
he  not  acknowledge,  that  the  Jews  were 
"  broken  off"  from  the  same  stock,  into 
which  the  Gentile*  were  grafted  ? 

Leb.  Why  he  says  here  "  unbelief  broke 
them  off;  the  same  privileges  to-  which  they 
seemed  more  particularly  entitled,  were 
wrested  from  them,  and  conferred  on  the 
M  new  man,"  composed  of  Jews  and  Gen* 
tiles.  They  were  then  the  children  of  the 
kingdom  cast  out  ;  that  was  taken  away 
which  they  seemed  to  have." 

JEug.  I  do  not  know  what  this  word  "seem- 
ed" has  to  do  in  this  case   The  apostle  doe.* 


166 

not  say  that  they  seemed  to  belong  to  the 
olive  tree,  and  were  "  broken  oft'"  only  in 
appearance.  He  declares  that  these  things 
were  actually  the  case.  But  read  a  little 
further. 

Leb,  (Reads,)  "It  is  evident  that  their 
being  "  broken  off,"  their  "  stumbling"  and 
"  their  fall"  mean  the  same  thing." 

Eug.  It  is  evident  that  their  being  "  bro- 
ken off,"  and  the  occasion  of  their  being 
"  broken  off,"  were  two  distinct  things. — 
The  latter  was  their  own  sinful  rejection 
of  the  Saviour;  and  the  former  was  the  ju- 
dicial act  of  God,  as  the  punishment  of  their 
sins.     But  read  the  next  paragraph. 

Leb.  (Reads.)  "  The  Jews  rvere  broken  off> 
or  rejected  jrom  that  into  which  the  Gentiles 
rvere  grafted  or  received,  called  their  own  olive 
treer 

Eug.  Very  well.  Now  Lebbeus,  you  per- 
ceive that  your  author,  after  leaving  his 
?  first"  and  last  argument,  (in  which  he  as- 
sumes the  very  point  in  dispute,)  adopts  the 
selfsame  interpretation  which  I  have  already 
given.  He  asserts  expressly  t.iat  "the  Jews 
were  broken  off  from  that  into  which  the 
Gentiles  were  grafted,  called  their  own  o- 
live  tree'''  This,  I  think,  is  asserting  the 
sameness  of  .the, church  in  as  explicit  terms  as 
any  Pa3dobaptist  can  desire. 

Eeb.  But  he  adds, — "  because  from  their 
previous  advantages,  they  seemed  naturally 
entitled  to  those  bles^in^s 

Eug.  I  have  already  reminded  you  that 


167 

the  apostle  says  nothing  about  their  "  seem- 
ing" to  belong  to  the  olive  tree  or  church  ; 
but  he  says  they  did  really  belong  to  it,  and 
were  actually  broken  off  from  it. 

Leb.  But  I  suppose  this  writer  considers 
the  olive-tree  to  be  the  Christian  church ;  for 
he  adds — "  and  especially  because  the  gospel 
church  was  first  organized  among  them, 
and  of  them,  which  comprises  all  the  blessings 
into  which  the  Gentiles  were  received,  and  from 
which  the  Jews  were  rejected" 

JEug.  "  The  gospel  church  was  first  organi- 
zed among  them,  and  OF  THEM"  Do  you 
believe  this,  Lebbeus?  Or  can  you  even 
persuade  yourself,  that  your  author  himself 
believes  that  our  Saviour,  in  the  first  place, 
received  the  unbelieving  Jews  into  the  gos- 
pel church,  and  then  "  broke  them  off"  or 
excommunicated  them  for  their  unbelief? 
No !  he  knows  the  contrary.  For  although 
the  change  of  dispensation  took  place  a- 
mong  the  Jews,  yet  that  very  change  ex- 
cluded those  unbelievers  from  the  covenant. 
Not  one  of  them  was  permitted  to  occupy  a 
standing  in  the  gospel  church.  Therefore, 
the  assertion,  that  "the  gospel  church  was 
first  organized  OF  THEM,''  is  notorious- 
ly false. 

Leb.  I  presume  the  author  does  not  mean 
that  the  unbelieving  Jews  composed  any 
part  of  the  gospel  church,  but  that  it  was 
formed  of  believing  Jews. 

Eug.  Then  surely  the  unbelieving  Jews 
were  not  "broken  off  from  that  into  which 


168 

the  Gentiles  were graj 'led."  Leaving  them  out 
could  in  no  sense  be  considered  "break- 
ing them  off;"  as  1  have  already  shewn  you, 
in  answer  to  Dr.  Gill,  from  whom  your  au- 
thor's "  logical  reasoning"  is  evidently  bor- 
rowed. His  favourite  word  "  seemed,"  will 
not  help  him  out  of  this  dilemma  :  for  these 
unbelievers  did  not  even  seem  to  belong  to, 
or  to  be  "  broken  off"  from  the  gospel 
church.  But  they  actually  did  belong  to,  and 
were  "broken  off"  from  their  own  olive  tree, 
the  Jewish  church  ;  and  we  have  the  autho- 
rity of  St.  Paul,  and  even  of  your  author 
himself,  that  "they  were  broken  off  from  that 
into  which  the  Gentiles  were  grafted" 

Thus  you  see,  after  all  this  parade  in  giv- 
ing this  argument  "due  attention,"  he  makes 
nothing  of  it,  but  what  the  passage  bears  on 
its  very  face — the  same  interpretation  that 
has  always  been  given  by  Pasdobaptists. — 
But  doubtless  there  was  an  object  in  all  this 
"  ado  about  nothing"  When  a  man  is  beset 
by  a  formidable  objection,  which  he  knows 
not  how  to  answer,  he  frequently  finds  it 
advantageous  to  his  cause,  to  meet  it  with 
great  composure,  and  apparently,  undaun- 
ted courage.  He  pronounces  it  easy  of 
solution,  and  one  that  has  been  answered 
a  thousand  times, — promises  to  give  it  "due 
attention;" — proposes  to  deduce  the  truth 
by  "  logical  reasoning  "  says,  "  First  then," 
— takes  for  granted  the  very  point  that  is  to 
be  proved;  quotes  several  texts  of  scrip- 
ture which  do  not  even  "seem"  to  relate  to 
the  subject ; — multiplies  a  great  many  words 


169 

—and  finally,  comes  to  the  very  same  con- 
clusion that  is  stated  in  the  objection.  But 
all  this  answers  the  intended  purpose.  It 
raises  a  great  fog,  and  makes  common  peo- 
ple suppose  that  the  objector  is  completely 
overthrown.  Whether  they  can  perceive 
it  or  not,  they  feel  assured  that  a  man  could 
not  meet  an  objection  with  so  much  courage, 
and  talk  so  long  about  it,  without  being  able 
to  answer  it ;  especially  one  who  "  seemed 
to  have"  an  extensive  acquaintance  with  the 
writings  of  the  fathers,  commentators  and 
reformers. 

Leb.  After  all,  Dr.  Gill  says  "there  is 
not  the  least  syllable  about  baptism,  much  less 
of  infant  baptism,  in  this  passage ." 

Eug,  No  body  pretends  there  is;  but 
there  is  a  number  of  verses  about  the  same- 
ness of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  church, 
which  establis-h  most  conclusively  the  pro- 
priety of  infant  membership  under  the  pre- 
sent dispensation.  This  is  all  the  evidence 
that  we  wish  to  derive  from  the  passage ;  and 
this  is  so  plain,  that  all  the  sophistry  of  yout 
denomination  cannot  obscure  it  from  those 
"  who  think  for  themselves,"  and  understand 
what  is,  and  what  is  not  "logical  reasoning." 

I  will  now  invite  your  attention  to  a  simi- 
lar, and  equally  striking  figure  with  that 
which  we  have  just  been  considering.  Please 
to  turn  to  Eph.  ii.  and  read  from  the  11th 
verse  to  the  end  of  the  chapter. 

Here  the  apostle  recognises  the  Epliesians 
before  their  conversion,  in  their  Gentile  char- 

15 


170 

acter.  "  Gentiles  in  the  flesh,  being  without 
Christ,  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Isra- 
el, and  strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise, 
having  no  hope,  and  without  God  in  the  world. 
But  now,  in  Christ  Jesus,  ye  who  sometimes 
were  far  off,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of 
Christ,  tor  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made 
both  one"  But  how  has  this  been  accomplish- 
ed ?  Was  it  by  destroying  the  old  building, 
and  with  a  part  of  the  materials  thus  scatter- 
ed around,  and  others  collected  from  the 
wilderness,  erecting  another  on  a  new 
foundation  ?  No  !  merely  by  "  breaking  down 
the  middle  wall  of  partition"  that  excluded 
the  Gentiles.  This  he  did,  not  by  destroy- 
ing the  original  covenant,  or  constitution  of 
the  church,  but  "  by  abolishing  the  law  of 
commandments  contained  in  ordinances"  It  was 
by  this  means  that  "he  made  in  himself  oj  twain 
one  new  man,  and  reconciled  both  unto  God  in 
one  body  ;^~and  came  and  preached  peace  to 
you  which  wt  ?  t  far  off,  and  to  them  that  were 
nigh.  For  by  him,  we  both  have  an  access  by 
one  Spirit  unto  the  Father."  Pray,  who  are 
these  that  were  "nigh"  before  the  wall  was 
broken  down?  for  they  occupied  the  very 
place  to  which  the  Gentiles  were  brought  by 
the  blood  of  Christ.  "  Notv,  therefore,  says 
the  apostle,  ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  fa 
reigners,  hut  fellow-citizens  with  the  saints  and 
of  the  household  of  God."  But  who  are  these 
saints  and  household  to  which  these  Gentiles 
were  strangers  and  foreigners  before  their 
conversion?  The  apostle  has  already  inform- 


171 

ed  us  on  this  point.  Yer.  12.  "  They  were  a- 
liens  from  the  commonwealth  of  Israel,  and 
strangers  from  the  covenant  of  promise.*  But 
now  they  are  u  fellow  citizens,  SCc.  And  are 
built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets,  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
corner-stone"  Here,  if  human  language  can 
express  the  unity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
church,  it  is  expressed.  Here  is  the  church 
standing  on  the  apostles,  and  the  church  stand- 
ing on  the  prophets,  each  resting  equally  on 
Jesus  Christ  as  their  foundation,  or  chief 
corner  stone.  This  stone,  which  the  unbe- 
lieving Jewish  builders  rejected,  and  which 
fell  upon  them,  is  indeed  the  head  of  the  cor- 
ner on  which  the  church  has  always  rested. — 
The  apostle  seems  so  full  of  this  subject  that 
the  same  idea  runs  through  the  succeeding 
chapters.  He  calls  the  Gentiles  "fellow-heirs, 
and  of  the  same  body  ;  and  partakers  of  the 
promise  in  Christ  by  the  gospel* 

I  shall  only  add  here  that  the  idea  of  a  two- 
fold but  essentially  the  same  church,  runs 
through  the  Apocalypse.  This  book  is  in- 
deed highly  mystical,  but  allusions  of  this 
kind  cannot  be  misunderstood.  The  jour  and 
twenty  elders,  seated  around  the  throne  of 
God,  with  crowns  of  gold  on  their  heads,  is 
a  manifest  allusion  to  the  twelve  patriarchs 

*  Some  may  still  sneer  at  the  idea  that  the  Jewish  church  at 
the  time  of  our  Saviour's  advent,  should  be  styled  "the  saints 
and  household  of  God."  But  as  I  have  already  answered  thie 
objection  more  than  once,  I  shall  only  remark,  that  there  were 
real  saints  in  the  Jewish  church,  at  that  time,  and  they  were  ali 
by  profession  "  the  household  of  God."  Those  who  were  net- 
were  "  broken  off"  before  the  Gentiles  were  incorporated  witlfc 
them,  a*  has  been  shewn,    (Page  138—9.) 


172 

or  heads  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  and  the  twelve- 
apostles.  Rev.  iv.4.  Such  also  are  the  two  mys- 
tical numbers  of  144,000.  Chap.  vii.  and  xiv. 
The  same  is  expressly  declared  of  the  twelve 
gates  and  the  twelve  foundations  of  the  New- 
Jerusalem,  on  which  were  written  "  the 
names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  children  of  Is- 
rael," and  "  the  names  of  the  twelve  apostles  of 
the  Lamb"  Chap.  xxi.  And  to  the  same  idea 
*'  the  song  of  31oses,  the  servant  of  God,  and 
the  song  of  the  Lamb"  which  was  sung  in 
heaven,  is  to  be  referred.  Chap.  xv.  3. — In 
all  these  allusions,  the  sameness  of  the  church 
under  both  dispensations,  is  plainly  recogni- 
sed and  established. 


SECTION  VL 

Eugenius.  We  havespenta  great  deal 
of  time,  Lebbeus,  on  this  subject,  but  before 
we  proceed  any  further,  I  wish,  as  briefly 
as  possible,  to  recapitulate  the  arguments 
which  I  have  adduced  in  support  of  the 
sameness  of  the  church  ;  and  then,  I  am  wil- 
ling to  submit  the  question  to  your  own 
conscience. 

In  the  first  place,  then,  I  have  proved 
that  infant  membership,  instead  of  stand- 
ing on  the  same  foundation  with  "  tythes, 
animal  sacrifices,  &c."  as  you  imagined,  was 
established  by  the  original  covenant,  which 
was  instituted  four  hundred  and  thirty  years 
before  the  ceremonial  law. 


173 

2.  That  this  covenant,  instead  of  being  a 
mere  national  compart,  was  the  covenant 
of  grace,  comprising  "  all  the  blessings  that 
God  has  ever  promised  to  his  church  :" — - 
That  the  seal  of  this  covenant,  instead  of  be- 
ing a  mere  mark  of  carnal  descent,  is  "a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  ofjaith"  and  impli- 
ed the  same,  when  applied  to  Abraham's 
seed,  as  to  himself: — That  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant  were,  ordinarily,  to  descend 
from  parents  to  children;  not  by  natural 
generation,  but  on  the  condition  of  the  cov- 
enant; and  hence  the  continued  impenitence 
of  children  results,  not  from  any  defect  in 
the  covenant,  but  from  the  unfaithfulness 
of  their  parents. — This  procedure,  I  shewed 
you,  is  analogous  to  other  parts  of  the  di- 
vine government,  and  secures  the  most  pow- 
erful means  for  the  preservation  and  ad- 
vancement of  religion  in  the  world. 

3.  That  the  same  principles  of  holiness 
and  obedience,  which  are  required  of  the 
Christian  church,  were  required  under  the 
former  dispensation ;  and  that,  not  merely 
on  the  ground  of  the  universal  law  of  God, 
but  by  the  covenant: — That  your  doctrine 
of  "typical"  holiness  is  contrary  to  the  A- 
brahamic  covenant  in  its  original  institution^ 
in  its  subsequent  renewals  witli  Abraham* 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  with  Israel  in  the  wil- 
derness, and  in  the  land  of  Canaan;  and  is- 
absolutely  inconsistent  with  the  moral  char* 
acter  of  God,  and  the  requirements  of  his 
holy  law, 


174 

4.  That  the  same  striking  epithets  and 
figures  of  speech,  are  applied  to  the  church 
under  both  dispensations,  to  express  her 
union  to  her  great  King  and  Head;  and  there 
is  not  the  Jeast  intimation  that  they  mean 
less  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other. 

5.  That  the  import  and  design  of  circum- 
cision and  the  pnssover  were,  respectively, 
the  same  with  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper, 
and  therefore  occupy  the  same  place  in  the 
covenant:  baptism  being  called  "Christ's  cir- 
cumcision" (Col.  ii.  11,  12.)  and  the  Lord's 
Supper,  "  Christ  our  passovcr"  (1  Cor.  v. 
7,8.) 

And  finally,  I  have  shewn,  by  several  ex- 
press texts  of  scripture,  which  might  have 
heen  multiplied  if  needful,  some  of  which, 
all  the  ingenuity  of  your  church  has  not 
been  able  to  explain  away,  that  the  Jew- 
ish and  Christian  church  is  essentially  the 
same ;  the  change  of  dispensation  not  hav- 
ingaltered  the  original  constitution. — If  you 
have  any  doubt  remaining,  on  any  of  these 
points,  review  the  evidence  which  has  been 
adduced,  for  I  am  willing  it  should  under- 
go the  strictest  scrutiny  ;  then  lay  your 
band  on  your  heart  and  say,  whether  the 
sentiment  which  J  have  been  advocating  is 
not  established . 

Leb,  I  acknowledge  myself  unable  to  con- 
trovert your  reasoning.  The  arguments 
which  you  have  adduced  have  been  exhi- 
bited in  a  light  that  appears  to  me  irresisti- 
ble.    I  must  therefore  decline  acting  any 


17. r) 

longer  as  an  opponent  on  this  point.  There 
are,  however,  some  difficulties  stiJl  remain- 
ing,  which  I  should  be  happy  to  state,  for 
the  purpose  of  hearing  your  remarks. 

Eug.  Please  sir  to  suggest  them  ;  and  if  I 
can  relieve  your  mind  of  any  embarrass- 
ment, I  shall  be  happy  to  serve  you. 

Leb.  Well  Sir, a  principal  difficulty  which 
operates  in  my  mind  is  this:  1  have  often 
heard  it  asserted,  that  this  method  of  prov- 
ing infant-membership,  by  a  recurrence  to 
the  Abrahamic  covenant,  is  a  "  recent  inven- 
tion"— that  "Zuinglius  and  Calvin  were  the 
first  that  ever  adopted  it," 

Eug.  Suppose  I  should  admit  this  to  be 
a  fact,  so  far  as  that  this  method  first  came 
into  general  use  about  the  time  of  the  Re- 
formation ;  what  would  it  prove?  Why  ve- 
rily this,  \hdt  previous  to  that  time,  there  was 
not  a  community  in  the  Christian  world,  called 
a  church,  which  denied  infant  membership. — 
It  is  no  strange  thing  that  the  sword  should 
rest  in  the  scabbard,  where  there  is  no  ene- 
my  to  oppose. 

Leb.  But  you  do  not  mean  to  intimate, 
that  there  were  no  Baptist  churches  previ- 
ous to  that  time? 

Eug.  That  is,  precisely,  my  meaning. 

Ltb.  You  astonish  me,  Eugenius  !  I  have 
been  told  a  thousand  times,  that  our  church 
had  always  existed  by  a  regular  and  unin- 
terrupted succession  from  John  the  Baptist ; 
and  I  have  supposed  that  this  was  distinr  t- 
ly  recorded  in  Ecclesiastical  history.  Is  no! 
this  the  case  ? 


176 

Eug.  No,  Lebbeus,  there  is  not  a  word  of 
truth  in  it.  Instead  of  going  to  the  land  of 
Judea,  for  the  origin  of  your  church,  you 
need  go  no  farther  than  the  city  of  Munster. 
And  instead  of  regarding  John  the  Bap- 
tist as  your  patron,  John  Bockhold,  if  not 
Thomas  Munzer,  is  the  legitimate  founder 
(if  the  term  legitimate  may  be  applied  to  a 
lawless  fanatic)  of  your  sect.  Your  church 
is  not  as  old  as  the  Christian  church,  by  al- 
most fifteen  hundred  years. 

Lei.  But  pray  tell  me,  whence  are  these 
facts  obtained  I 

Eug.  They  are  derived  from  any  authen- 
tic history  of  the  church;  and  if  you  will 
take  the  trouble  to  examine  for  yourself, 
you  will  be  convinced,  that  the  Baptist  sys- 
tem is  a  mere  mushroom,  that  vegetates  in 
the  night,  without  seed  or  root ;  and  Ian* 
guishes  and  dies  beneath  the  rays  of  the 
sun. — To  substantiate  in  part  what  I  have 
already  advanced,  I  may  refer  you  to  the 
concessions  of  your  own  denomination.  Dr, 
Gill,  one  of  the  most  learned  and  laborious 
divines  that  your  church  ever  boasted  of, 
and  others  less  distinguished,  have  been 
constrained  to  acknowledge,  that  from  the 
fourth  to  the  eleventh  century  of  the  Chris- 
tian era,  they  are  "not  able  to  find  one  in- 
stance of  an  opposer  oj  infant  baptism." — 
Here  then,  is  a  period  of  seven  hundred  years 
in  which  there  is  no  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  a  single  Baptist  churchy  or  even  of  an 
individual  Baptist.  Hence,  it  may  fairly  be* 


177 

presumed,  that  if  your  order  had  been  ori- 
ginally derived  from  John  the  Baptist,  the 
succession  must  have  been  completely  in- 
terrupted. 

Leb.  But  it  would  seem  from  this  conces- 
sion, that  there  was  evidence  somewhere, 
that  previous  to  the  fourth,  and  subsequent 
to  the  eleventh  century,  infant  baptism 
met  with  opposition.     Is  this,  then,  a  fact? 

Eug.  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  I  will 
refer  you,  in  the  first  place,  to  the  testimo- 
ny of  Dr.  Wall,  a  learned  divine  of  the 
church  of  England,  who  wrote  a  history  of 
infant  baptism  more  than  a  hundred  years 
ago.  This  same  Dr.  Wall,  though  a  Ptedo- 
baptist,  supposes  that  immersion  is  the 
proper  mode  of  baptism;  and  therefore,  on 
this  point,  he  is  often  referred  to  by  your 
denomination.  For  this  reason  it  woukl 
seem,  that  his  authority  ought  to  be  more  re- 
spected by  them,  on  both  parts  of  the  con- 
troversy, than  Psedobaptists'in  general.  The 
following  quotation  is  his  summary  of  the 
evidence,  on  both  sides  of  the  question. — 
"LastIy,forthefirstfourhundredyears,there 
"appears  only  one  man,  TertulJian,  who  ad- 
"  vised  the  delay  of  infant  baptism  in  som© 
"cases,  and  one  Gregory,  who  did  perhaps 
"  practice  such  delay,  in  the  case  of  his  own 
"children;  but  no  society  of  men  so  think- 
"  ing  or  so  practising;  or  any  one  man  sa)> 
"  ing  it  was  unlawful  to  baplize  infants.  So5 
"in  the  next  seven*  hundred  years,  there 
"is  no*  so  much,  as  ane.  man  to  be  founds 


178 

"who  either  spoke  for  or  practised  any 
"  such  delay,  but  all  the  contrary.  And  when, 
"about  the  year  1130,  one  sect  among  the 
"  Waldenses  or  Albigenses  declared  against 
"the  baptizing  of  infants,  as  being  incapa- 
"ble  of  salvation,  the  main  body  of  that 
"  people  rejected  their  opinion  ;  and  they 
"of  them  who  held  that  opinion,  quickly 
"  dwindled  away  and  disappeared  ;  there  be- 
"ing  no  more  persons  heard  of,  holding  that 
"  tenet,  until  the  rising  of  the  German  Anti- 
"pasdobaptists  in  the  year  1522." 

In  order  to  shew  you,  that  these  asser- 
tions are  not  made  without  abundant  evi- 
dence of  their  correctness,  I  shall  refer  you 
to  some  of  the  authorities  on  which  they  are 
founded. 

Dr.  Gill  and  others  of  his  sect  who  have 
repeated  the  sentiment  after  him,  have  as- 
serted that  "  Tertitllian  is  the  first  who 
spoke  of  infant  baptism,  and  at  the  same 
time  spoke  against  it."  In  answer  to  this 
it  has  been  observed  with  great  propriety, 
that  "Dr.  Gill,  instead  of  saying  that  Terlul- 
lian  is  the  first  man  who  mentions  infant  bap- 
tism and  spoke  against  it,  ought  to  have  said, 
that  he  was  the  only  man  tfi  all  antiquity, 
whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us,  who  has 
said  any  thing  at  all  against  the  practice  of 
baptising  infants"  This  is  the  precise  fact. 
No  other  person  among  all  the  ancient  fa- 
thers speaks  against  it.  What  sort  of  a 
foundation  is  this  for  the  Baptist  scheme  ? 
Because  the  fathers  of  the  first  century  af- 


179 

ter  the  Apostles,  are  silent  on  the  subject, 
therefore,  say  the  Baptists,  it  was  never  prac- 
tised at  that  time.  Suppose  I  should  infer 
from  the  same  fact,  that  it  was  universally 
practised ;  which  would  really  be  the  most 
probable  ?  And  if  this  practice  were  intro- 
duced, as  they  say,  about  Tertullian's  time, 
how  can  we  account  for  his  being  the  only 
opposer  ?  Was  he  the  only  faithful  man  in  all 
Christendom  ?  Was^  there  no  other  to  oppose 
such  a  monstrous  innovation?  We  know, 
that  in  those  days,  the  smallest  deviation  in 
faith  or  practice,  produced  most  awful 
schisms  in  the  church  ;  and  yet  the  Baptists 
would  fain  persuade  us,  that  a  practice,  in 
their  opinion,  more  impious  than  any  of  the 
abominations  of  popery,  was  universally 
introduced  throughout  the  Christian  church, 
at  the  close  of  the  second  or  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  and  only  one  man  lifted  up  his 
voice  against  it !!!  Will  any  man  of  common 
sense  believe  this  ? 

But  after  all,  what  is  the  amount  of  Ter- 
tullian's opposition  to  infant  baptism  ?  It 
would  seem,  from  the  frequent  references 
to  this  fact,  that  here  was  something, 
the  Peedobaptists  knew  not  how  to  dispose 
of.  But  does  he  say  that  there  is  no  authori- 
ty in  scripture  for  the  practice  ?  No  ! — Does 
he  pronounce  it  an  innovation  not  sanction- 
ed by  Apostolic  example  ?  No ! — Does  he 
ridicule  it  as  being  of  no  more  use  than  to 
baptize  "  lambs  and  calves  and  young  cat- 
He  ?" — Nothing  of  the  kind. — He  merely 


gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that  it  had  better  be 
delayed  till  the  subjects  are  of  riper  years  : 
and  at  the  same  time,  he  allows  it  as  proper, 
in  cases  of  sickness  or  danger  of  death.  From 
this  fact  it  is  evident,  that  Tertullian  was 
opposed  to  the  general  practice  of  infant 
baptism,  on  very  different  ground  from  the 
modern  Baptists ;  for  they  are  as  much  op- 
posed to  baptizing  infants  at  the  point  of 
death,  as  at  any  other  time.  With  this  fact, 
in  view,  if  I  were  a  Baptist,  J  should  be  a- 
shamed  to  refer  to  Tertullian's  authority. 
But  how  shall  we  account  for  his  advice 
against  the  general  practice  of  infant 
baptism,  while  he  admits  of  it  in  cases  of 
extremity  ?  This  apparent  inconsistency  is 
easily  solved,  and  the  true  ground  of  his  o- 
pinion  ascertained,  when  we  recollect  that, 
about  this  time,  the  sentiment  that  baptism 
actually  washed  away  all  moral  pollution, 
and  that  sins  committed  after  the  reception 
of  that  ordinance  were  so  heinous,  as  to  be 
next  to  unpardonable,  began  to  obtain.  On 
this  mistaken  ground,  Tertullian  advises,  not 
only  to  delay  the  baptism  of  infants  till  they 
are  of  riper  years,  but  also  the  baptism  of 
"  unmarried  persons,  till  the  danger  of  temp- 
tation is  past — till  marriage  or  the  abate- 
ment of  lust."  From  the  same  false  im- 
pression, it  was  no  uncommon  thing  at  that 
period,  for  those  who  were  converted  to  the 
Christian  faith,  to  delay  their  baptism  till  the 
close  of  life. 

Here  then  is  the  whole  secret  of  Tertul- 


181 

lian's  opposition  to  infant  baptism.  And  if 
it  proves  that  practice  to  have  been  an  inno- 
vation, it  proves  the  same  concerning  the 
baptism  of  unmarried  persons.  But  in  nei- 
ther case  does  this  follow.  Nay,  his  very 
advice,  instead  of  militating  against  the 
practice,  proves  that  it  was  then  and  ever  had 
been  the  universal  usage  of  the  church,  a- 
gainst  which  he  could  urge  nothing  but  his 
own  opinion,  which  was  founded  on  an  erro- 
neous sentiment.  In  view  of  this  fact  I  ask, 
can  a  man,  who  knows  what  Tertullian  does 
say  on  this  subject,  be  honest  in  asserting 
that  "he  is  the  first  of  the  fathers  who  speaks 
of  infant  baptism,  and  at  the  same  time 
speaks  against  it ?"  The  Baptists  never  pre- 
tend to  quote  his  words,  but  merely  make 
this  broad  assertion,  which  carries  great 
weight  in  the  view  of  those  people  who  are 
ignorant  of  what  he  does  say.  They  con- 
sider it  as  overwhelming  evidence  against 
the  Psedobaptists;  and  this  is  the  manifest 
design  of  the  assertion.  But  is  not  this  tell- 
ing a  part  of  the  truth  to  establish  a  par- 
ticular system,  when,  if  the  whole  (ruth  were 
told,  it  would  be  most  decisive  testimony  a- 
gainst  it?  Would  not  such  a  witness  in  a  ci- 
vil court  be  deemed  guilty  of  perjury?  Is 
it  any  better  in  a  theological  controversy? 
or,  does  the  gospel  admit  of  pious  frauds  ? 

This,  then,  according  to  their  own  con- 
cession, is  all  the  testimony  that  the  Baptists 
have  to  urge  against  infant  baptism,  during 
the  first  1 100  years  of  the  Christian  era ;  and 

16 


182 

this,  instead  of  disproving  it,  affords  conclu- 
sive evidence,  that  it  was  the  universal  prac- 
tice of  the  church. 

But  although  Tertullian  is  the  first  of 
the  fathers,  that  expressly  mentions  infant 
baptism,  it  is  distinctly  recognised  before 
his  time.*  JustinM  artyr,  who  wrote  about 
forty  years  after  the  Apostolic  age,  says 
"  We  have  not  received  the  carnal,  but  spiritu- 
al circumcision,  by  baptism  :  and  it  is  enjoin- 
ed on  all  persons  to  receive  it  in  the  same  man- 
ner" Here,  baptism  is  distinctly  recogni- 
sed as  coming  in  the  place  of  circumcision, 
and  as  applicable  to  the  same  subjects.  And 
is  this  the  "  new  fangled  doctrine  which  was 
invented  about  Luther's  time  for  other  pur- 
poses than  gospel  purity  ?"  Such  is  the  de- 
claration of  one  who  professes  to  be  ac- 
quainted with  the  writings  of  "  the  fathers" 
and  "  historians''  and  "  reformers"  and 
"learned  authors"  and  "quakers  ;"  and  to 
have  "  carefully  consulted  linguists." 


*Dr.  Gill  being  conscious  that  his  system  can  derive  no  sup- 
port from  the  writings  of  the  fathers,  endeavours  to  discredit 
their  testimony  by  intimating,  that  their  writings  have  been  cor- 
rupted ;  and  he  expressly  asserts  that  "  what  is  pretended  to  be 
near  those  times,  [apostolic  days]  is  the  more  to  be  suspected ;" 
and  yet  after   writing  only  two  pages,    he  cites  a  passage  from 
the  writings  of  St.  Barnabas,  a  cotemporary  of  the   apostles  and 
the   companion  of  St.  Paul,  to  prove  immersion,   (a  passage,  by 
the  way,  precisely  parallel   to  the  scripture  - expression  "  going 
down  into  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water.";     But  did  Dr.  Gill 
forget  so  soon,  his  own  declaration  "  the  nearer  the  apostolic  age, 
ihe  more   suspicious   the  testimony.'*     Or   did  he  mean,    that   we 
must   suspect  the   fathers  in   nothing  but  what   was  against  his 
system  ?  This  is  asking  rather  too  much.     If  he  considers  them 
competent  witnesses   in  favour  of  immersion,   1  shall  consider 
them  so  in  support  of  infant  baptism,  until  those  passages  are 
proved  to  be  interpolations  ;  which  the  Baptists  have  never  yet 
had  hardihood  enough  to  attempt. 


183 

Again,  Justin  Martyr  observes  "  seve- 
ral persons  among  us  of  60  or  70  years  old, 
who  were  made  disciples  to  Christ  from  their 
childhood  do  continue  uncorrupl."  They 
were  madedisciples/rom  their  childhood;  and 
how  ?  but  in  obedience  to  the  commission 
of  our  Lord  "  Go  disciple  all  nations,  bapti- 
zing them,  SCc" 

Irenjeus,  who  was  born  before  the  death 
of  St.  John,  wTas  well  acquainted  with  Poly- 
carp,  St.  John's  disciple,  and  often  heard 
him  preach,  and  who  wrote  in  advanced  life 
between  sixty  and  seventy  years  after  the 
apostolic  age,  observes  concerning  Christ, 
"  He  came  to  save  all  persons  who  by  him  are 
regenerated  unto  God,  infants,  little  ones, 
youths  and  elderly  persons"  Many  of  the 
ancient  fathers  used  the  words  regeneration 
and  baptism  as  in  some  sense  synonymous. 
That  Irenaeus  did  so  in  the  passage  I  have 
quoted  is  manifest  from  his  own  words;  for 
he  says  "  When  Christ  gave  his  apostles  com- 
mand  of  regenerating  unto  God,  he  said, 
Go  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them, 
&c."  In  like  manner,  Justin  Martyr  ob- 
serves "  they  are  regenerated  in  the  same 
way  oj  regeneration,  in  which  we  have  been 
regenerated;  for  they  have  been  washed 
with  water,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and 
of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost"  In 
order  to  apply  these  passages  to  the  point 
in  dispute,  it  is  needless  to  determine,  whe- 
ther the  word  regeneration  is  therein  used 
correctly  or  not.    The  sense  in  which  it.  is 


184 

used  is  manifest,  and  therefore  it  is  evident 
that  these  testimonies  are  decidedly  in  fa- 
vour of  infant  baptism. 

Origen,  who  was  born  eighty-five  years 
after  the  apostolic  age,  declares  that  "  the 
church  had  a  tradition  or  command  from  the 
apostles  to  give  baptism  to  infants."  And  he 
makes  use  of  infant  baptism,  as  an  argument, 
to  maintain  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity. 
These  are  his  own  words.  "  David,  concern- 
ing the  pollution  of  infants,  says,  I  was 
"conceived  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my 
"  mother  bring  me  forth.  Let  it  be  consid- 
ered what  is  the  reason,  that  whereas  the 
"  baptism  of  the  church  is  given  for  forgive- 
ness, infants  also,  by  the  usage  of  the 
"church,  are  baptized  ;  when  if  there  were 
"nothing  in  infants,  which  wanted  forgive- 
"ness  and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism 
"  would  be  needless  to  them.  And  again, 
"  infants  are  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
"sin.  Of  what  sin?  Or,  when  have  they 
"  sinned  ?  Or,  how  can  any  reason  of  the  la- 
"  ver  hold  good  in  their  case  ?  But  accor- 
"ding  to  that  sense  before  mentioned,  none 
"  is  free  from  pollution,  though  his  life  be 
"  only  the  length  of  one  day  upon  the  earth. 
"It  is  for  this  reason  that  infants  are  bapti- 
"  zed,  because  by  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
"  our  pollution  is  taken  away."  Can  any 
person  believe,  that  Origen  would  have  rest- 
ed an  important  doctrine  on  an  argument, 
the  correctness  of  which  was  disputed  by 
any  part  of  the  church  ?  The  supposition  is 
incredible. 


1S5 

I  will  now  refer  you  to  the  testimony  of 
Cyprian  and  the  council  of  Carthage  in  the 
year  253.  The  following  question  had  been 
proposed  by  Fid  us,  a  Presbyter,  to  Cypri- 
an, and,  by  him,  was  submitted  to  this  coun- 
cil, viz.  Whether  an  infant  might  be  baptized 
before  it  was  eight  days  old  ?  The  council 
consisted  of  sixty-six  bishops;  and  they  were 
perfectly  unanimous  in  their  decision,  which 
Cyprian  communicated  to  Fidus  in  the  fol- 
lowing words.  "As to  the  case  of  infants, 
"of whom  you  said,  that  they  ought  not  to 
"  be  baptized,  within  the  second  or  third  day 
"  after  their  birth,  and  that  the  ancient  law  of 
"  circumcision  should  be  so  far  rejteated,  that 
"they  ought  not  to  be  baptized  till  the  eighth 
"  day,  we  were  ail  of  a  very  different  opin- 
"  ion.  The  mercy  and  grace  of  God,  we  all 
"judged,  should  be  denied  to  none.  For  if 
"the  Lord  says  in  his  gospel,  '  The  Son  of 
"man  is  not  come  to  destroy  men's  lives 
"  but  to  save  them,'  how  ought  we  to  do  our 
"  utmost  as  far  as  in  us  lies,  that  no  soul 
"should  be  lost!  Spiritual  circumcision 
"should  not  be  impeded  by  carnal  circum- 
"cision.  If  even  to  the  foulest  offenders, 
"when  they  afterwards  believe,  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  is  granted,  and  none  is  prohib- 
ited from  baptism  and  grace  ;  how  much 
"more  should  an  infant  be  admitted,  who, 
"just  born,  hath  not  sinned  at  all,  except 
"that  being  carnally  born  according  to  A- 
"dam,  he  hath  contracted  the  contagion  of 
"  ancient  death  in  his  first  birth;  who  ap- 
16* 


]8G 

"proaches  to  remission  of  sins,  the  more 
"easily,  because,  not  his  own  actual  guilt, 
"but  that  of  another  is  remitted. — Our  sen- 
tence therefore,  clearest  brother,  in  the 
"council  was,  that  none  by  us  should  be 
"prohibited  from  baptism  and  the  grace  of 
"God,  who  is  merciful  and  kind  to  all." 

Here  observe,  that  the  Presbyter  who 
proposed  this  question,  does  not  intimate  a 
doubt  of  the  propriety  of  infant  baptism.  The 
only  hesitation  was,  whether  it  might  be  ap- 
plied earlier  than  circumcision  had  been.  Not 
a  doubt  is  expressed  by  the  council, — they 
are  unanimous  in  their  result.  Therefore, 
I  ask  again,  does  it  appear,  from  the  nature 
of  this  question  and  the  answer  which  it  re- 
ceived, that  the  ancient  fathers  did  not  re- 
gard the  Abrahamic  covenant  as  the  consti- 
tution of  the  church — that  "this  method  of 
proving  infant  baptism  was  first  invented  by 
Zuinglius  or  Calvin"  Can  any  man,  who  has 
ever  seen  the  record  of  this  fact,  and  has  any 
regard  to  truth,  assert,  that  the  idea  of  bap- 
tism's coming  in  the  place  of  circumcision 
"  is  a  new  f angled  doctrine,  invented  about  the 
time  oj  Luther  for  other  purposes  than  gospel 
purity  ?" 

St.  Ambrose,  who  wrote  about  274  years 
after  the  apostles,  expressly  declares  "  that 
infant  baptism  was  practised  in  his  time,  and 
in  the  time  of  the  Apostles." 

St.  Chrysostom,  who  was  born  A.  D.  355, 
observes  that  "  persons  may  be  baptized  either 
in  their  infancy,  in  middle  age,  or  in  old  age," 


187 

and  that   "  infants  were  baptized,   although 
they  had  no  sin,  &c." 

St.  Hierome,  who  wrote  about  280  years 
after  the  Apostles,  says  "  if  infants  be  not 
baptized,  the  sin  of  omitting  their  baptism  is 
lend  to  the  parents'  cheirge" 

St.  Austin,    who  was   cotemporary  with 
Hierome,  mentions  "  infant  baptism  as  one  of 
"  those  practices  which  was  not  instituted  by 
"  any  council,  bid  hael  always  been  in  use"  He 
savs    "The  whole  church  of   Christ   had 
"  constantly  held  that  infants  were  baptized  for 
"  the  forgiveness  of  sin."     That  he  had  ne- 
"  ver  read  or    heard  of  any  Christian, 
"  catholic   or  sectary,  who  held   other- 
"  wise  :"   and  that  "  no  Christian  of  any  sort, 
"  ever  denied  it  to  be  use  fid  or  necessary"  "  If 
"  any  one   says  he,  should  ask  for  Divine  au- 
thority in  this  matter,  though  that,  which 
"the  whole  church  practises,  and  which  has 
"not  been  instituted  by  councils,  hut  was  e- 
"  ver  in  use,  may  be  believed,  very  reasona- 
"  bl y,  to  be  a  thing  delivered  or  ordered  by 
"the    apostles,  }et    we  may,  besides,  take  a 
"  true  estimate,  ftow  much  the  sacrament  of bap- 
"  tism  does  avail  infants,  by  the  circumcision 
"  which  GoeVs  former  people  received^     Here 
again,  we  are  assured,  not  only  that  infant 
baptism  was  practised  in  the  primitive  ages, 
but  that  the   church  considered   the  law  of 
circumcision  as  the  foundation  and  warrant 
of  the  practice.     Therefore  I  am  bold  to  af- 
fi  in,  that   when   a  man, professing  acquaint- 
ance with  the  writings  of  antiquity,  asserts, 
that  this  "is  a  newfangled  doctrine  inven- 
ted about  the  time  of  Luther,"  he  betrays 


188 

gross  ignorance  of  the  subject,  or  a  total  dis- 
regard to  truth.     "Against  men  that  will 

MAKE    SUCH    ASSERTIONS,    IT    IS    MY     DUTY    TO 
WARN  YOU." 

Not  only  do  these  positive  declarations  of 
the  fathersestablish  the  practice  ofinfant  bap- 
tism, but  the  manner  in  which  they  mention 
the  subject  affords  conclusive  evidence  that 
it  was  the  universal  practice  of  the  church. 
They  are  not  found  disputing  the  point 
with  opponents,  deducing  arguments  to 
justify  it,  or  removing  objections  against  it 
They  merely  hint  at  the  subject  inciden- 
tally, when  treating  on  other  topicks. — 
This  would  not  have  been  the  case,  had 
there  been  a  single  individual,  and  especial- 
ly if  there  had  been  any  considerable  por- 
tion of  the  church,  which  rejected  the  prac- 
tice. They  were  always  ready  to  enter  the 
lists  with  any  opponent.  And  had  there 
been  a  single  opposer  of  infant  baptism  in 
Christendom,  we  should  find  their  writings 
teeming  with  arguments  to  overthrow  the 
adversary.  This  single  circumstance  is  con- 
clusive in  proving,  not  only  that  it  was  no 
innovation,  but  also  that  it  was  the  univer- 
sal practice  ojthe  church  during  the  first  four 
centuries. 

Before  I  leave  this  period,  T  must  call 
your  attention  to  the  evidence  furnished  by 
the  Pelagian  controversy,  concerning  origi- 
nal sin :  which  commenced  about  three 
hundred  years  after  the  apostles.  Pelagius 
maintained  that  infants  were  born  pure  from 


189 

all  sin.  Among  other  arguments  which  Hie* 
rome  and  Austin  urged  against  his  doctrine, 
was  infant  baptism.  "Infants,  say  they,  are 
by  all  Christians  acknowledged  to  bland  in 
need  oj  baptism,  which  must  be  in  then  for  ori- 
ginal sin  since  they  have  no  other. — If  they 
have  no  sin  why  are  they  then  baptized. —  Why 
are  they  washed  in  the  laver  of  regeneration  if 
they  have  no  pollution  ?" 

Pelagius  and  his  adherents,  as  might  be 
expected,  were  extremely  embarrassed  with 
this  argument,  and  they  knew  not  bow  to 
evade  it.  If  there  had  been  the  smallest  scru- 
ple in  their  minds  with  respect  to  the  Di- 
vine authority  of  this  practice,  if  there  had 
been  a  single  section  of  the  church  which  re- 
jected it,  would  not  Pelagius  have  availed 
himself  of  the  advantage?  He  was  even 
charged  by  some  of  rejecting  infant  baptism; 
probably  because  it  seemed  naturally  to  re- 
sult from  his  doctrine.  But  he  highly  re- 
sented the  charge,  and  disclaims  it  as  a  slan- 
der, declaring  that  "  Baptism  ought  to  be  ad- 
ministered to  infants  with  the  same  sacramen- 
tal words  which  are  used  in  the  case  of  adult 
persons"* — that  "  men  slander  him  as  if  he  de- 
nied the  sacrament  of  baptism  to  infants,'  and 
that  "  he  never  heard  oe  AK\,notcvcn  THE 
MOST  IMPIOUS  HERETIC,  that  would 
say  such  a  thing  of  infants."  Strange,  in- 
deed, if  it  were  ever  practicable,  that  Pe- 
lagius, with  all  his  learning,  could  not  dis- 
cover, in  his  day,  what  Baptists  pretend  to 
have  discovered  eleven  or  twelve  hundred 


190 

years  later;  Tiz.  that  infant  baptism  was  an 
innovation  of  the  second  or  third  century  !!! 
The  fact  is,  Pelagius  never  possessed  the 
facially  of  discovering  things  that  never  ex- 
isted. 

From  all  this  evidence,  it  appears  that 
during  the  four  first  centuries  there  is  not 
an  individual  to  be  found  in  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church  who  denied  infant  baptism.  One 
indeed,  on  mistaken  principles,  advises  its 
delay,  both  with  respect  to  little  children  and 
unmarried  persons,  but  still  admits  of  it,  in 
both  instances,  in  case  of  extremity ;  while 
others  explicitly  declare  that  it  was  derived 
from  the  apostles,  and  was  the  universal  prac- 
tice of  the  church. 

With  respect  to  the  seven  succeeding  cen- 
turies, many  of  the  most  distinguished  Bap- 
tists, as  you  have  already  heard,  have  ac- 
knowledged that  they  cannot  find  a  single 
opposer  of  the  practice.  The  whole  support 
then,  of  the  Baptist  scheme,  during  the  first 
eleven  hundred  years  of  the  Christian  era* 
is  the  testimony  of  Tertullian,  which,  when 
the  whole  truth  is  told,  is  one  of  the  most  de- 
cisive testimonies  in  favour  of  infant  bap- 
tism. 

In  the  eleventh  century  there  was  a  sect 
of  the  Pauiicians,  who  rejected  all  external 
rites  and  ceremonies,  and  maintained  that 
"the  whole  of  religion  consisted  in  the  stu- 
dy of  practical  piety,  and  in  a  course  of  ac- 
tion conformable  to  the  Divine  laws."  They 
denied  the  necessity  and  utility  of  external 


191 

ordinances,  and  hence  refused  both  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  supper  to  adults  as 
well  as  infants.  In  this  respect,  their  prin- 
ciples were  the  same  with  the  modern  Qua- 
kers. But,  can  any  man  suppose  that  the 
practice  of  this  sect  argues  any  thing  in  fa- 
vour of  the  Baptist  scheme  ?  For  my  part, 
I  cannot  perceive  how  ;  and  I  should  never 
have  imagined  it,  had  I  not  seen  the  autho- 
rity of  the  Quakers  referred  to  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  found  some  Baptists  expressing 
themselves  thus — "  1/  the  Quakers  would  ac- 
cept of  compliments,  I  would  thank  them  for 
their  DISINTERESTED  testimony  on  the 
subject  of  the  present  controversy"  This,  how- 
ever, is  nothing  singular;  it  is  not  the  first 
time  that  men,  as  much  opposed  to  one 
another  as  Pilate  and  Herod  were,  have  be- 
come friends  in  opposing  the  true  church  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

In  the  twelfth  century,  as  you  have  al- 
ready heard  from  Dr.  Wall,  "  one  sect  of 
the  Waldenses  or  Albigenses  declared  a- 
gainst  the  baptizing  of  infants,"  but  upon 
different  ground  from  the  modern  Baptists; 
for  they  pronounced  infants  "  incapable  of 
salvation"  But  this  sentiment  was  rejected 
by  the  great  body  of  that  people,  and  those 
who  embraced  it  soon  dwindled  away  and 
disappeared  ;  "  there  being  no  more  persons 
'  heard  of  holding  that  tenet  until  the  rising  of 
the  German  Anti-padobaptists,  in  the  ycarjif- 
teen  hundred  and  twenty-two"  These  facts 
are  abundantly  substantiated  by  various  his- 


192 

torians.  Where  then,  I  ask,  was  the  Baptist 
church  during  all  this  time  ?  Am  I  not  jus- 
tified in  the  assertion  that  "your  church  is 
not  as  old  as  the  true  Christian  church  by  al- 
most fifteen  hundred  yearsT 

Lei).  I  am  overwhelmed  with  astonish- 
ment. If  these  things  are  so,  pray  tell  me, 
whence  did  our  denomination  originate  ? 

Eug.  Here  is  the  ivth  volume  of  Mo- 
sheim's  Ecclesiastical  History :  I  will  read 
you  two  or  three  paragraphs,  and  you  may 
then  take  the  book  home  with  you  and  pe- 
ruse it  at  your  leisure. 

"It  is  difficult  to  determine  with  certainty,  the  particular 
spot  that  gave  birth  to  that  seditious  and  pestilential  sect  of  a- 
nabaptists,  whose  tumultuous  and  desperate  attempts  were  e- 
cually  pernicious  to  the  cause  of  religion,  and  the  civil  interests 
of  mankind.  Whether  they  first  arose  in  Switzerland,  Germa- 
ny, or  the  Netherlands,  is  as  yet  a  matter  of  debate,  whose  de- 
cision is  of  no  great  importance.  It  is  most  probable,  that  seve- 
ral persons  of  this  odious  class  made  their  appearance,  at  the 
same  time,  in  different  countries;  and  we  may  fix  this  period 
soon  after  the  dawn  of  the  reformation  in  Germany,  when  Lu- 
ther arose  to  set  bounds  to  the  ambition  of  Rome.  This  appears 
from  a  variety  of  circumstances,  and  especially  from  this  stri- 
king one,  that  the  first  anabaptist  doctors  of  any  eminence,  were 
almost  all  heads  and  leaders  of  particular  and  separate  sects. — 
For  it  must  be  carefully  observed,  that  though  all  these  pro- 
jectors of  a  new,  unspotted,  and  perfect  church,  were  compre- 
hended under  the  general  denomination  of  anabaptists*  on  account 
of  their  opposing  the  baptism  of  infants,  and  their  re-baptizing 
such  as  had  received  that  sacrament  in  a  state  of  childhood  in 
Other  churches,  yet  they  were,  from  their  very  origin,  subdivided 
into  various  sects,  which  differed  from  each  other  in  points  of 
no  small  moment.  The  most  pernicious  faction  of  all  those  that 
composed  this  motley  multitude,  was  that  which  pretended  that 
the  founders  of  the  new  and  perfect  church,  already  mentioned, 
were  under  the  direction  of  a  divine  impulse,  and  were  armed 
against  all  opposition  by  the  power  of  working  miracles,  it  was 
this  detestable  faction,  that  in  the  year  1521,  began  their  fanati- 
cal work,  under  the  guidance  of  Munzer,  Stubner,  Storck,  and 
other  leaders  of  the  same  furious  complexion,  and  excited  the 
most  unhappy  tumults  and  commotions  in  Saxony  and  the 
adjacent  countries.    They  employed  at  first  the  various  arts  of 


193 

persuasion,  in  order  to  propagate  their  doctrine.  They  preach* 
ed,  exhorted,  admonished,  and  reasoned  in  a  manner  that  seem- 
ed proper  to  gain  the  multitude,  and  related  a  great  number  of 
visions  and  revelations  with  which  they  pretended  to  have  been 
favoured  from  above.  But  when  they  saw  that  these  methods 
of  making  proselytes  were  not  attended  with  such  a  rapid  suc- 
cess as  they  fondly  expected,  and  that  the  ministry  of  Luther 
and  other  eminent  reformers,  was  detrimental  to  their  cause, 
they  then  had  recourse  to  more  expeditious  measures,  and  madly 
attempted  to  propagate  their  fanatical  doctrine  by  force  of  arms. 
Munzer  and  his  associates  assembled,  in  the  year  1525,  a  nume- 
rous army,  composed,  for  the  most  part,  of  the  peasants  of  Sua- 
bia,  Thuringia,  Franconia  and  Saxony,  and,  at  the  head  of  this 
credulous  and  deluded  rabble,  declared  war  against  all  laws,  gov- 
ernment, and  magistrates,  of  every  kind,  under  the  chimerical 
pretext  that  Christ  was  now  to  take  the  reins  of  civil  and  eccle 
siastical  government  into  his  own  hands,  and  to  rule  alone  over 
the  nations.  But  this  seditious  crowd  was  routed  and  dispersed 
without  much  difficulty,  by  the  elector  of  Saxony  and  othe? 
princes;  Munzer,  their  ringleader,  ignominiously  put  to  death, 
and  his  factious  counsellors  scattered  abroad  in  different  place?. 
"This  bloody  defeat  of  one  part  of  these  seditious  and  turbu- 
lent fanatics,  did  not  produce  that  effect  upon  the  rest  that 
might  naturally  have  been  expected ;  it  rendered  them  indeed 
more  timorous,  but  it  did  not  open  their  eyes  upon  this  delusion. 
It  is  certain,  that  even  after  this  period,  numbers  of  them,  wht> 
were  infected  with  the  same  odious  principles  that  occasioned 
the  destruction  of  Munzer,  wandered  about  in  Germany,  Switz- 
erland and  Holland,  and  excited  the  people  to  rebellion  by  their 
seditious  discourses.  They  gathered  together  congregations  in 
several  places ;  foretold,  in  consequence  of  a  divine  commission. 
the  approaching  abolition  of  magistracy,  and  the  downfal  of  ci- 
vil rulers  and  governors;  and,  while  they  pretended  to  be  am  * 
bassadors  of  the  Most  High,  insulted,  on  many  occasions,  the? 
Majesty  of  heaven  by  the  most  flagitious  crimes.  Those  who 
distinguished  themselves  by  the  enormity  of  their  conduct  in 
this  infamous  sect,  were  Lewis  Hetzer,  Balthazar  Hubmeyer, 
Felix  Mentz,  Conrad  G rebel,  Melchior  Hoffman,  and  George 
Jacob,  who,  if  their  power  had  seconded  their  designs,  would 
have  involved  all  Switzerland,  Holland  and  Germany  in  tumult 
and  bloodshed.  A  great  part  of  this  rabble  seemed  really  deli- 
rious ;  and  nothing  more  extravagant  or  more  incredible  can  be 
imagined  than  the  dreams  and  visions  that  were  constantly  arising 
in  their  disordered  brains.  Such  of  them  as  had  some  sparks  of 
reason  left,  and  had  reflection  enough  to  reduce  their  notions  in- 
to a  certain  form,  maintained,  among  others,  the  following  points 
of  doctrine:  'That  the  church  of  Christ  ought  to  be  exempt 
from  all  sin  ;  that  all  things  ought  to  be  in  common  among  the 
faithful ;  that  all  usury,  tythes  and  tribute  ought  to  be  entirclv 
abolished;  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  an  invention  of  the 
devil  i  that  every  Christian  was  invested  with  a  power  to  preach 

17 


194 

the  gospel,  and  consequently,  that  the  church  stood  in  no  need 
of  ministers  or  pastors  ;  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  civil  ma- 
gistrates were  absolutely  useless,  and  that  God  still  continued 
to  reveal  his  will  to  chosen  persons  by  dreams  and  visions.' " 

Then  after  mentioning  the  severe  pun- 
ishments that  were  inflicted  to  restrain 
their  disorders,  and  their  temerity  in  en- 
countering them,  Mosheim  continues : 

**  There  stands  upon  record  a  most  shocking  instance  of  this, 
in  the  dreadful  commotions  that  were  excited  at  Munster,  in  the 
year  1533,  by  certain  Dutch  anabaptists,  that  chose  that  city  as 
the  scene  of  their  horrid  operations,  and  committed  in  it  such 
deeds  as  would  surpass  all  credibility,  were  they  not  attested  in 
a  manner  that  excludes  every  degree  of  doubt  and  uncertainty. 
A  handful  of  madmen,  who  had  got  into  their  heads  the  visiona- 
ry notion  of  a  new  and  spiritual  kingdom,  soon  to  be  established 
in  an  extraordinary  manner,  formed  themselves  into  a  society,  un- 
der the  guidance  of  a  few  illiterate  leaders,  chosen  out  of  the 
populace.  And  they  persuaded,  not  only  the  ignorant  multitude, 
Ibut  even  several  among  the  learned,  that  Munster  was  to  be  the 
seat  of  this  new  and  heavenly  Jerusalem,  whose  ghostly  domi- 
nion was  to  be  propagated  from  thence  to  all  the  ends  of  the  earth. 
The  ringleaders  of  this  furious  tribe  were  John  Matthison,  John 
Bockhold,  a  taylor  of  Leyden,  one  Gerhard,  with  some  others 
whom  the  blind  rage  of  enthusiasm,  or  the  still  more  culpable 
principles  of  sedition,  had  embarked  in  this  extravagant  and 
desperate  cause.  They  made  themselves  masters  of  the  city  of 
Munster,  deposed  the  magistrates,  and  committed  all  the  -enor- 
mous crimes,  and  ridiculous  follies,  which  the  most  perverse  and 
xnfernal  imagination  could  suggest.  John  Bockhold  was  pro- 
claimed king  and  legislator  of  this  new  hierarchy;  but  his  reign 
HTas  transitory,  and  his  end  deplorable.  For  the  city  of  Munster 
was,  in  the  year  1536,  retaken,  after  a  long  siege,  by  its  bishop 
and  sovereign,  count  Waldeck ;  the  New  Jerusalem  of  the  ana- 
baptists destroyed  ;  and  its  mock  monarch  punished  with  a  most 
painful  and  ignominious  death.  The  disorders  occasioned  by  the 
anabaptists  at  this  period,  not  only  in  Westphalia,  but  also  in 
other  places,  showed  too  plainly  to  what  horrid  lengths  the  per- 
nicious doctrines  of  this  wrongheaded  sect  were  adapted  to  lead 
the  inconsiderate  and  unwary;  and  therefore  it  is  not  at  all  to  be 
wondered,  that  the  secular  arm  employed  rigorous  measures  to 
extirpate  a  faction  which  was  the  occasion,  nay,  the  source  of 
unspeakable  calamities  in  so  many  countries."  See  also  Robert- 
son's Charles  V. 

We   do  not  charge  your  denomination, 
with  all  the  extravagancies  of  these  fanatics. 


195 

Shortly  after  their  association,  they  were 
greatly  reformed  and  reduced  to  a  consid- 
erable degree  of  order  by  Menno,  a  Popish 
priest,  who  went  over  to  them,  and  became 
the  apostle  of  the  sect.  But  in  them  you 
behold  the  true  origin  of  the  Baptist  church ; 
and  from  them,  are  derived  the  distinctive 
principles  of  your  denomination.1* 


*  Although  the  Baptists  were  first  organized  into  a  distinct 
denomination  in  the  with  century,  and  although  many  have 
supposed  that  the  origin  of  their  sentiments,  is  still  veiled  in 
considerable  obscurity,  I  cannot  forbear  to.  hazard  the  conjec~ 
ture,  that  the  fundamental  principles  of  that  system,  may  be 
traced  up  to  the  very  first  heresy  that  disturbed  the  Christian 
church.  From  the  Gnosticks  of  the  Apostolic  age  down  to  the 
German  fanatics,  it  is  evident  that  there  were  some,  in  every 
age,  who  maintained,  in  some  shape  or  other,  that  "  The  books 
of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  of  Divine  authority — that  the  God 
of  the  Jew*  -was  not  the  true  God,  but  a  kind  of  subordinate 
dkitt,  -whom  they  had  substituted  in  the  place  of  the  true  God,- 
and  that  JWoses,  in  imposing  such  a  system  of  disagreeable  and  se- 
vere laws  on  the  Jews,  was  acttiated  by  that  subordinate  deity,  who 
consulted  his  own  glory  and  authority,  and  not  the  real  advantage 
of  men?''  And  in  consequence  of  "a  persuasion  that  evil  resided 
in  matter  as  its  centre  and  source,  which  prevented  their  treat- 
ing the  body  with  that  regard  that  is  due  to  it,"  some  of  them 
denied  the  utility  of  external  ordinances,  and  of  course  rejected 
the  sacraments  of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper.  These  sen- 
timents were  confined  to  the  East  until  the  xith  century  ;  at 
which  time,  a  great  multitude  of  the  Paulicians,  who  maintain- 
ed these  doctrines  with  some  modifications,  "  either,  from  a  zeal 
"  to  propagate  their  opinions,  or,  a  desire  to  escape  the  perse- 
**  cutions  of  the  Grecian  church,  emigrated  into  Europe,  and 
"  among  other  countries,  into  France  and  Germany.  Here  they 
"  laid  aside  some  of  the  most  obnoxious  doctrines  which  they 
"  hud  previously  maintained,  assumed  the  appearance  of  singular 
"  piety,  rejected  all  rites  and  ceremonies,  even  the  Christian  sa- 
"  craments,  and  looked  with  contempt  on  all  external  worship, 
*'  In  the  following  ages.,  a  like  set  of  men,  who  had  previously 
•*  emigrated  from  the  East,  proceeded  in  vast  numbers  out  of  It- 
"  aly,  spread  like  an  inundation  through  all  the  European  pro- 
"  vinces,  and  were  known  in  Germany  under  the  name  of  The 
u  brethren  and  sisters  of  the  free  spirit"  From  Germany  some  of 
them  emigrated  into  England  during  the  reign  of  Henry  viiith, 
and  began  to  propagate  their  sentiments  in  that  kingdom.  (See 
Spanhkix,     Moshfim,   Bfrket   and   others.)      Now    observe^ 


196- 

Now  Lebbeus,  I  wish  you  to  judge  for 
yourself,  which  were  the  most  zealous  ad- 
vocates for  "gospel  purity,"  Luther  and 
his  coadjutors,  or  the  lawless  enthusiasts  by 
whom  your  denomination  was  founded.  If 
the  former  had  been  removed  when  the  lat- 
ter arose,  where  would  have  been  the  glory 
of  the  Protestant  church?  It  is  unquestion- 
ably owing  to  the  light  which  Luther  and 
Calvin  and  others  of  their  communion  dif- 
fused, that  your  sect  were  induced  to  purge 
out  many  of  the  most  obnoxious  sentiments, 
which  their  predecessors  had  maintained. 
But  for  the  influence  of  those  worthies,  the 
heresies  of  former  ages  would  have  remained 
in  all  their  deformity. 

Leb.  In  view  of  all  this  evidence,  I  wish, 
sir,  to  ask  you  one  question  :  Do  you  re- 
gard our  churches,  as  churches  of  Christ ; 
and  our  elders,  as  regularly  authorized  min- 
isters of  the  gospel  ? 

JEug.  I  candidly  ackaowledge,  that  this 
question  is  the  most  difficult  to  answer  of 

1  hat  "  the  Old  Testament  is  all  done  away" — that  «'  Jehovah 
•was  merely  a  King  or  temporal  Governor  to  Israel," — that  "  the 
Jewish  religion  -u-as  a  carnal  religion,  rjell  adapted  to  please  the- 
carnally  minded  and  did  not  require  heai.  holmess,"  are  well 
known  to  be  the  fundamental  sentiments  of  the  Baptist  scheme. 
f  „et  the  reader  compare  these  with  the  sentiments  stated  in  the 
beginning1  of  this  note,  which  were  maintained  by  the  early  here- 
tics, and  then  say.  whether  there  is  not  a  striking  affinity  be- 
tween them  ?  Then  let  him  read  the  history  of  the  Gnosticks — 
the  Manichxans — the  Paulicians — the  Catharists — the  Brethren 
and  Sisters  of  the  free  spirit — the  Men  of  understanding,  and 
other  German  fanatics,  and  I  think,  he  can  be  at  no  loss,  as  to 
the  derivation  of  Baptist  sentiments.  In  this  point  of  view,  I  am 
willing  to  admit  a  regular  sitccession  from  the  apostolic  age  ; 
but  it  is  from  a  source,  and  through  a  channel,  which,  however 
strong  its  claims  to  antiquity  m^y  be,  can  do  no  honour  to  any 
Christian  denomination. 


19? 

any  you  have  proposed,  since  we  commen- 
ced our  discourse.  I  have  already  obser- 
ved, that  the  question,  which  divides  your 
church  and  ours,  is  a  constitutional  question. 
Our  system  being  established,  you  are  guil- 
ty of  rejecting  one  prominent  article  of  the 
constitution  of  the  church.  How  far  this 
etfects  the  actual  existence  of  your  church, 
1  am  not  prepared  to  say.  I  have  no  doubt, 
that  churches  may  be  erroneous  both  in  faith 
and  practice,  and  yet  those  errors  not  being 
fundamental,  they  may  be  true  churches  of 
Christ.  But  with  what  propriety  this  re- 
mark may  be  applied  to  those  communities 
which  reject  and  deride  the  constitution  that 
lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  church,  is  very 
difficult  to  determine.  Nor  is  it  a  matter  of 
much  consequence,  in  view  of  the  latter 
part  of  your  inquiry,  as  a  still  more  se- 
rious difficulty  exists  with  respect  to  the 
ordination  of  your  ministers  ;  and  of  course, 
as  to  the  validity  of  their  administrations. 

If  I  understand  the  gospel,  the  ministe- 
rial office  was  given  by  our  Saviour  to  his 
apostles,  to  be  exercised  by  them,  and  com- 
mitted to  other  faithful  men,  agreeably  to 
the  direction  of  Paul  to  Timothy.  "  Neg- 
lect not  the  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  giv- 
en thee  by  prophecy,  and  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the  presbytery"  1  Tim.  iv.  14. 
"  And  the  things  that  thou  hast  heard  of  me 
among  many  witnesses,  the  same  commit  thou 
lo  faithful  men,  who  shall  be  able  to  teach  oth- 
ers also."  2  Tim.  ii.  2.     This  "  honour"  or 

it* 


198 

office  power  "no  man  can  take  on  himself  " 
and  none  that  does  not  possess  it,  can  confer 
it  upon  another.  But  your  denomination 
have,  from  their  beginning,  rejected  this 
doctrine,  and  advocated  lay -ordination.  The 
Anabaptists  of  the  xvith  century,  as  you 
have  just  heard  from  Mosheim,  maintained 
that  "  every  Christian  was  invested  with  a 
"power  to  preach  the  gospel,  and  conse- 
quently that  the  church  stood  in  no  need 
"  of  ministers  or  pastors."  Since  that  time, 
the  sentiment  has  been  boldly  advocated  by 
some  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of 
vour  communion.  Dr.  Gill  asserts,  that 
"As  every  civil  society  has  a  right  to 
"  choose,  appoint  and  ordain  their  own  offi- 
"  cers, — so  churches,  which  are  religious  so- 
cieties, have  a  right  to  choose  and  ordain 
"their  owe  officers,  and  which  are  ordained 
"for  them,  and  for  them  only;  that  is  for 
"each  particular  church,  and  not  another* 
"  The  election  and  call  of  them  with  their 
"acceptance  is  ORDINATION."  This 
indeed  levels  the  Christian  ministry  with  the 
ground,  and  opens  the  door  for  the  intro- 
duction of  any  man,  however  ignorant  and 
vicious,  if  he  only  has  craft  enough  to  im- 
pose on  a  small  community  of  people  as  ig- 
norant as  himself,  and  induce  them  to  choose 
him  for  their  pastor.  Not  only  so,  it  drives 
Dr.  CilJ  into  this,  among  other  gross  absur- 
dities: that  "  a  pastor  of  one  church,  cannot 
officiate  as  such  in  another  church"  nor  "  ad- 
minister the  Lord's  Supper"  nor  even  "pu$ 


199 

forth  any  act  or  operation  there"  any  more 
than  "  the  Lord  Mayor  of  London  can  exer- 
cise his  power,  in  any  branch  of  his  office,  m 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Mayor  of  York  or 
Bristol." — When  such  sentiments  as  these 
are  advanced  by  the  most  distinguished 
members  of  your  communion,  to  say  the 
least,  there  is  great  room  for  suspicion. — I 
am  aware  that  manv  of  vour  churches  have- 
denounced  these  opinion?,  and  oppose  them 
in  practice.  But  a  mere  change  in  senti- 
ment and  practice  cannot  give  validity  to  an 
invalid  ordination-.  Though  your  elders 
alone  are  permitted,  at  the  present  time,  to 
ordain,  yet  they  can  confer  no  power  but 
what  they  received.  And  if  they  derived 
their  power  from  the  source  maintained  by 
Dr.  Gill,  then,  they  stand  on  the  same  ground 
with  the  founders  of  your  sect,  who  public? 
ly  advocated  lay-ordination,  or  rather  deni- 
ed the  necessity  of  any  ordination  at,  all. — . 
I  do  not  say,  that  none  of  your  ministers 
have  been  regularly  ordained ;  but,  this  P 
say,  there  is  so  much  obscurity  with  respect 
to  the  body  at  large,  that  I  am  unable  to 
give  a  decisive  answer  to  your  question. 


SECTION  VII. 

Prom  the  doctrine  which  has  been  es- 
tablished, and  the  evidence  adduced  from 
writings  of  the  Fathers  and  the  history  of 
the  church,  I  am  warranted  to  infer,  that 


200 

infant  baptism  is  the  ordinance  of  God,  and 
has  been  the  practice  of  the  church  Jrom  the 
days  of  the  apostles. 

Your  denomination  have  ever  founded 
their  opposition  to  infant  baptism,  on  the 
want  of  what  they  call  "explicit  ivarrant" 
They  say,  there  must  be  an  express  precept 
or  an  unquestionable  example,  in  the  New 
Testament,  to  justify  the  practice.  With 
the  greatest  propriety,  we  deny  this.  We 
prove  that  when  the  Lord  first  organized 
his  church  into  a  regular  community,  it  was 
composed  of  professed  believers  and  their 
households  ;  and  that  the  existing  seal  of  the 
covenant  was,  by  divine  direction,  applied 
to  both.  Now  we  say,  and  we  have  an  ?m- 
doubted  right  to  say,  to  our  opponents,  "The 
"labouring  oar  is  yours: — prove  that  the 
"original  constitution  of  the  church  is  al- 
tered;— prove  that  the  infant  seed  of  be- 
lievers have  ever  been  excluded  from  the 
"covenant.  Produce  the  passage  from  the 
"word  of  God,  in  which  this  evidence  is 
"  contained,  and  we  will  surrender  the  point. 
"It  is  your  duty  to  furnish  explicit  warrant 
"  against  our  practice"  Conscious  of  the 
correctness  of  this  demand,  and  of  their  ut- 
ter inability  to  comply  with  it,  your  people 
have  been  driven  to  the  direful  necessity  of 
vilifying  the  ancient  church,  reducing  it 
to  a  mere  shadow,  and  degrading  the  AL- 
MIGHTY GOD  OF  ISRAEL  to  the  ig- 
noble station  of  a  temporal  King."  This  is 
the  yery  foundation  of  your  whole  scheme ; 


20* 

and  a  rotten  one  it  is,  in  very  deed !  The 
most  able  of  your  disputants  have  never  un- 
dertaken to  comply  with  our  just  demand. 
They  have  never  pretended  to  prove  that 
infants  are  expressly  excluded  fron>  the 
church.  All  the  evidence^  they  have  addu- 
ced, is  of  the  negative  kind.  They  say 
"there  is  no  command  or  example  in  the 
New  Testament  for  infant  baptism."  This, 
if  admitted,  is  nothing  to  the  point.  AfteF 
all  that  we  prove,  it  is  your  business  to  fur- 
nish the  precept  or  example  against  it. — 
They  say,  "  the  gospel  requires  a  profesr 
sion  of  repentance  or  faith  as  a  qualification 
for  baptism."  We  admit  it  without  hesita- 
tion, for  the  same  did  the  Lord  require  of 
old.  But  as  then,  so  now,  when  the  profes- 
sed believer  receives  the  seal  of  the  cov- 
enant, he  becomes  entitled,  by  God's  gra- 
cious promise,  to  the  same  seal  for  his  chil- 
dren. We  are  as  strenuous  advocates  for 
believer's  baptism,  as  you  are.  We  never  ad- 
minister the  ordinance,  but  on  a  credible 
profession  of  faith.  We  do  not  pretend  to 
baptize  infants  without  it.  But  we  require 
the  profession  not  of  the  infants,  but  of  them 
in  whom  the  right  lies.  The  infants  of  be* 
lievers,  in  themselves  considered,  have  no 
more  right  to  baptism,  than  the  children  of 
unbelievers.  The  right  vests  in  the  believ- 
ing parent,  and  results  from  God's  gracious 
covenant  with  him.  Hence  we  mark  the 
children  as  "set  apart"  for  the  Lord,  be- 
cause their  parents  are  the  Lord's. — Thus 


202 

we  produce  direct  and  positive  evidence  in 
support  of  our  practice,  and  you  can  fur- 
nish nothing-  but  negative  evidence  against 
it. — In  a  large  company  of  men  a  felony  is 
committed.  Ten  of  the  men  are  brought 
forward,  who  testify  that  they  saw  the  accu- 
sed perpetrate  the  crime.  Ten  more  of  the 
company,  or  ten  times  ten  if  you  please, 
come  forward  in  his  defence,  and  declare 
that  they  did  not  rvitness  the  crime,  nor  even 
see  the  man  there.  Would  this  afford  any 
just  ground  for  a  jury  to  doubt  whether  the 
man  was  guilty  of  the  alledged  crime  ? 
Would  they  hesitate  a  moment  to  pronounce 
him  guilty  ?  Here  is  no  clashing  of  testimo- 
ny :  No  balancing  of  probabilities.  The 
veracity  of  no  witness  is  called  in  question. 
All  are  believed.  But  here  is  the  point. 
There  is  direct  and  positive  testimony  to 
support  the  charge;  and  against  it,  nothing 
but  negative  evidence,  which  might  be  mul- 
tiplied to  the  ends  of  the  earth,  without  in- 
creasing its  weight.  This  is  the  precise 
state  of  the  controversy  between  your  de- 
nomination and  ours. 

Leo.  But  Sir,  you  have  more  than  once 
intimated,  that  there  is  evidence  in  the 
New  Testament  to  sanction  your  practice. 
I  should  be  glad  to  hear  you  on  that  point. 

Bug.  Seeing  that  our  Saviour  and  his 
apostles  acknowledged  the  Abrahamic  cov- 
enant as  the  constitution  of  the  church,  as 
I  have  abundantly  shewn,  there  is  just  as 
much  evidence  of  infant  membership  in  the 


203 

New  Testament  as  we  should  expect  to 
find  ;  and  that  is,  a  distinct  recognition  of 
the  fact.  Thus  our  Saviour  declares  "Suf- 
fer little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid 
them  not,  for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  God" 
See  Mat.  xix.  14.  Mar.  x.  14.  Luk.  xviii. 
16. 

Leb.  But  these  children  were  not  brought 
to  Christ  for  baptism. 

Eug.  Very  true  :  and  for  very  important 
reasons.  They  were  the  children  of  be- 
lieving parents,  (for  no  others  would  have 
brought  their  children  to  Christ,  beseeching 
him  to  lay  his  hands  on  them  and  pray,)  and 
therefore  had  received  the  existing  seal  of  the 
covenant.  Besides  this,  Christian  baptism 
was  not  then  instituted.  The  change  of 
dispensation,  as  has  been  shewn,  had  not 
then  taken  place.*  But  they  were  "  little 
children,'9  "young  children,"  "infants,"  {ov 
so  they  are  called  by  the  different  evange- 
lists;  and  they  were  "brought"  to  Christ, 
and  "  fie  took  them  up  in  his  arms.,J  All  these 
circumstances  shew,  that  they  were  so  small 
as  to  be  incapable  of  acting  for  themselves. f 

*  That  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism,  will  be 
proved,  when  I  come  to  speak  of  the  mode. 

f  It  is  perfectly  astonishing  to  witness  the  various  expedients 
of  the-Baptists,  to  explain  away  every  text  of  scripture,  that 
seems  to  favour  infant  membership.  They  have  attempted  to 
destroy  the  force  of  this  text,  by  endeavotiring  to  make  the 
world  believe,  that  these  children  must  have  been  at  least  12 
years  of  age.  And  why  ?  Merely  because  the  ruler's  daughter, 
who  is  said  to  be  12  years  of  age,  is  called  "padton"  (a  child) 
which  is  the  same  word  that  is  used  in  this  text ;  although  these 
children  are  said  to  have  been  "  brought"  to  Christ,  and  that 


204 

And  yet  Christ  declares  "  Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  God.  Now  understand  this 
phrase,  in  any  of  the  senses,  in  which  it  oc- 
curs in  the  gospel,  the  result  will  be  the 
same  in  favour  of  our  practice.  Suppose 
it  means  "  the  kingdom  oj  glory"  If  hea- 
ven is  filled  with  infants,  shall  the  church  on 
earth  exclude  them?  Suppose  it  means  "the 
kingdom  of  grace;"  shall  they  be  excluded 
from  the  household  of  J aith  on   earth?    Or 

"  he  took  them  up  in  his  arms."  This  must  have  been  rather  a 
singular  method  of  handling  children  12  years  old ;  notwith- 
standing one  has  said  in  explanation  of  this,  that  "  Christ  was 
omnh>ote:<(t  ! ! !" — But  the}'  are  not  only  called  "padia,"  but 
also  "  brephe."  Luk.  xviii.  15.  This  term  not  onlv  signifies 
**  infants,'"  as  it  is  rendered  in  our  translation,  but  from  its  deriva- 
tion it  properly  means  "sucklings."  It  is  the  Greek  word  which 
is  applied  to  children,  not  only  as  soon  as  they  are  born,  as  in 
Luk.  ii.  12, 16,  but,  also  to  Xhefatus  in  utero.  See  Luk.  i.  41— 
44.  But  even  this  word,  Dr.  GjII  says,  is  applied  to  one  "ca- 
pable of  being  instructed  and  of  understanding  the  scriptures." 
But  where  ?  He  refers  to  2  Tim.  iii.  15.  "From  a  child  thou  hast 
kno~on  the  holy  scriptures"  But  did  the  apostle  mean  to  say, 
that  Timothy  had  been  acquainted  with  the  scriptures  merely 
from  the  time  he  was  capable  of  understanding  them  ?  Suppose 
the  word  should  be  rendered  u  infant"  or  "  suckling"  which  is 
its  proper  meaning  j  would  there  be  any  thing  incredible  in  the 
declaration  that  '*'  from  his  infancy  he  had  known  the  scrip- 
tures 1"  Faithful  parents,  I  believe,  are  in  the  habit  of  beginning 
to  instil  divine  truth  into  the  minds  of  their  children,  even  be- 
fore they  are  iceaned.  And  so,  I  presume,  did  the  mother  of  Tim- 
othy, who  was  renowned  for  piety,  and  her  mother  before  her. 
2  Tim.  i.  5.  If  this  text,  therefore,  has  any  bearing  on  the  pre- 
sent controversy — if  Timothy's  '*  knowing  the  scriptures"  implies 
what  Dr.  Gill  says  it  does,  viz.  "  understanding  them  ;"  it  proves, 
that  he  -was  sanctified  at  a  very  early  period  of  life,  through  the  in- 
strumentality of  his  pious  mother's  fidelity. — Here  then  on  this  text 
we  have  a  fair  specin  en  of  Baptist  candour.  Now,  suppose,  we 
were  told  in  plain  words  in  the  New  Testament,  that  "  padia" 
(little  children)  or  "  brephe"  (infants  or  sucklings)  are  proper 
subjects  of  baptism,  would  not  our  opponents  adopt  the  same  ex- 
pedients to  destroy  what  they  are  constantly  demanding,  an  "  ex- 
plicit warrant  ?"  For  my  part,  I  have  no  doubt,  they  would  ar- 
gue, in  the  same  way,  to  prove  that  they  must  be  at  least  12 
years  old,  before  they  could  be  baptized. " 


205 

suppose  it  means,  what  is  the  most  frequent 
import  of  the  words,  "  the  visible  church  ; 
the  point  is  decided.  Whether  you  apply 
it  to  the  former  or  latter  dispensation,  the 
result  will  be  in  our  favour.  If  to  the  for- 
mer, our  Saviour  hereby  declares,  that  as 
infants  were  attached  to  the  church  under 
that  dispensation,  it  was  his  benevolent  in- 
tention to  continue  their  standing;  and  there- 
fore he  rebuked  his  disciples  for  manifesting 
a  disposition  to  exclude  them.  If  the  phrase 
be  applied  to  the  gospel  church,  which  in- 
deed is  by  far  the  most  frequent  applica- 
tion, it  is  "explicit  warrant — a  positive  de- 
claration that  the  gospel  church,  like  the  an- 
cient, is  in  a  great  measure  composed  of  in- 
fants. But  this  is  more  than  I  ask,  and  more 
than  Baptists  will  admit,  as  long  as  any  me- 
thod of  torture  for  a  text  of  scripture  re- 
mains. Take  which  of  the  preceding  inter- 
pretations you  please,  it  is  a  plain  proof  of 
infant  membership. 

The  same  idea  is  plainly  deducible  from 
the  grand  commission  of  our  Lord  to  his  a- 
postles.  "  Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  (that  is 
"  disciple''''  or  "  make  disciples)qf"  for  so  the 
original  word  literally  signifies)  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Sfc." 
Mat  xxviii.  19. 

Leo.  But  this  plainly  implies  that  they 
must  believe  before  they  are  baptized. 

Eug.  It  plainly,  declares  that  they  are 
to  be  "  made  disciples"  before  they  are  bap- 
tized. And  as  to  the  manner  of  making  dis- 
ciples, this  was  to  be  done  according  to  the 

18 


206 

method  which  had  been  previously  estab- 
lished, and  which  Christ  had  left  unaltered. 
Till  then,  their  commission  had  been  confi- 
ned "  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Is- 
rael." But  now  it  is  extended  to  the  whole 
world ;  to  Gentiles  as  well  as  Jews.  "  The 
middle  wall  of  partition"  being  removed, 
they  are  to  go  forth  and  "  disciple  all  na- 
tions" just  as  the  Jews  had  been  "  discipled" 
in  preceding  ages.  The  original  plan  is  left- 
unaltered  ;  the  execution  of  that  plan  is  on- 
ly extended.  No  other  directions  were  giv- 
en; no  other  are  to  be  found  in  the  gospel. 
Hence,  they  were  to  "  make  disciples  of 
all  nations"  by  requiring  a  credible  profes- 
sion of  faith,  of  all  adult  persons,  and  then 
acknowledging  their  infant  seed  as  disciples 
(or  scholars)  to  be  trained  up  in  the  school  of 
Christ  for  the  Lord's  service.  Then  both  pa- 
rents and  children  are  to  receive  the  seal  of 
God's  covenant,  as  a  mark  that  they  are,  in  a 
peculiar  sense,  the  Lord's  property.  If  this 
is  not  the  plain  interpretation  of  the  text, 
then  Christ  has  given  a  commission  that  ne- 
ver will  nor  can  be  executed.  Even  in  the  mil- 
lenium,  a  great  part  of  the  nations  cannot 
be  called  disciples,  if  infants,  who  are  inca- 
pable of  making  a  personal  profession  of 
faith,  are  excluded  from  the  covenant.* 


*  It  is  truly  diverting  to  see  the  Baptists,  when  pressed  with 
the  inconsistency  of  their  practice  in  maintaining-  female  commu- 
nion without  "explicit  warrant,"  tugging  with  all  their  might 
to  prove  it  from  1  Cor.  xi.  28.  "  Let  a  MAN  examine  HIMSELF,. 
&.c."  "  Here,"  say  they,  "  is  explicit  warrant"  for  female  com- 
munion. The  "  word  fanthroposj  rendered  man  is  a  generic  term . 
tor  the  human  species,  and  includes  lotmen  as  well  as  men.''* 


207 

In  the  light  of  this  iext,  we  see  what  con- 
sequence is  to  be  attached  to  the  baptism  of 
"households  "  spoken  of  in  the  New-Testa- 
ment. It  is  true  we  are  not  expressly  in- 
formed that  there  were,  or  were  not,  infants, 
or  little  children  in  any  of  those  families, 
though  your  denomination  speak  of  these, 
with  as  much  confidence  as  if  the  latter  were 
expressly  declared.  But  this  much  is  plain- 
ly deducible  from  the  record  in  the  instan- 
ces of  Lydia  and  the  jailer,  that  they  were 
the  only  professed  believers  in  their  respec- 
tive families.     The  jailer's  conversion  is  all 

shall  consider  this  argument  at  large,  when  I  come  to  speak  of 
female  communion  :  I  shall  therefore  only  inquire  here,  if"  an- 
thropos"  is  a  generic  term,  does  it  not  include  infanta  as  well  as 
men  and  -women,  and  so  prove  infant,  as  well  as  female  commu- 
nion. This,  however,  would  be  proving1  rather  too  much. — But 
suppose,  when  the  Baptists  demand  of  us  an  explicit  warrant  for 
infant  baptism,  we  should  refer  them  to  the  commission  of  Christ 
to  his  apostles,  and  insist  that  the  term  "ndtionf  includes  all 
the  individuals  of  the  community,  consisting  of  men,  women, 
children  and  servants  I  appeal  to  "  lexicographers:,"  to  "  com- 
mon sense,"  and  even  to  Baptists  themselves,  with  all  their  pre- 
judices, whether  there  is  not  as  firm  a  foundation  here  for  expli- 
cit warrant  to  justify  infant  baptism,  as  in  i\\z  text  to  which  they 
refer  for  the  support  of  female  communion  ?  It  is  vain  to  plead 
that  infants  cannot  be  "made  disciples,"  and  are  therefore  exclu- 
ded ;  for  this  is  begging-  the  question.  Besides,  we  have  proved 
that  they  were  once  included  in  the  covenant,  and  our  opponents 
must  shew  that  they  hive  been  excluded  before  they  tell  us  that 
they  cannot  be  regarded  as  disciples 

But,  says  Dr  Gill,  "It  infants,  as  a  part  of  all  nations,  and 
because  they  are  such,  are  baptized,  then  the  infants  of  Heathens, 
Turks  and  Jews  ought  to  be  baptized,  since  they  are  a  part,  and 
a  large  part  of  all  nations."  Very  true,  and  so  they  should;  that 
is,  whenever  they  become  disciples,  and  this  will  be  the  case, 
when  their  parents  become  believers.  Hence,  1  have  said,  and  I 
repeat  the  sent  mem,  if  this  is  not  to  be  the  case,  then  Christ 
has  given  a  commission  that  never  ca?i  be  executed  Even  in  the 
miltenium,  "a  large  part  of  all  nations"  according  to  Dr.  Gill's 
•  '.vii  statement,  will  not  b<£  "  discipled,^  if  all  infants  are  to  be  ex- 
cluded. 


20$ 

that  is  declared  to  have  taken  place  in  his 
house.  Common  readers  of  the  bible  are 
apt  to  suppose  that  the  conversion  of  the 
whole  family  is  asserted  in  Acts  xvi.  34. — 
But  no  such  idea  can  be  deduced  from  the 
original  text,  of  which  the  following  is  as  lit- 
eral a  translation  as  our  language  affords 
terms  to  express.  "And  when  he  had  brought 
them  into  his  house,  he  set  meat  before  them, 
and  rejoiced  with  for  in)  all  his  house,*  he 
having  believed  in  God"  Faith  is  here 
predicated  not  of  his  household,  but  of  him- 
self alone.  To  infer,  therefore,  that  the  rest 
of  his  household  were  converted  at  that 
time,  is  taking  for  granted  what  is  not  even 
intimated.  It  is  true  we  are  told  that  "  the 
apostles  spake  the  word  to  all  that  were  in 
his  house,"  but  this  is  no  evidence  that  they 
were  all  converted,  nor  is  the  idea  even  im- 
plied in  any  part  of  the  record. 

Moreover,  this  view  of  the  passage  ac- 
cords precisely  with  what  the  apostles  told 
the  jailer,  when  he  inquired  "  What  must  I 
do  to  be  saved?"  The  answer  was  "  Believe 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shall  be 

*  To  shew  the  propriety  of  this  construction,  it  may  be  pro- 
per to  inform  the  unlettered  reader,  that  the  phrase  which  is 
translated  "  with  all  his  house"  instead  of  being  a  preposition, 
with  an  adjective,  a  personal  pronoun,  and  a  noun,  as  in  ojpr 
language,  is  a  single  word  in  the  original,  and  that  a  com- 
pound adverb,  qualifying  the  verb  "  rejoiced."  It  is  rendered  "with 
all  his  house,"  merely  because  the  English  language  does  not 
uirmsh  an  adverb  corresponding  with  the  original.  These  facts 
plainly  shew,  that  the  passage,  instead  of  declaring  the  conver- 
sion of  the  whole  family,  only  expresses  the  circumstance  of  his 
rejoicing,  not  only  in  his  own  personal  safety,  but  also  in  the 
glorious  prospect  with  respect  to  his  household^  which  the  faith 
eJf  the  gospel  had  opened  to  his  view. 


209 

saved  and  try  house."  This  is  a  plain  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  original  promise.  As  if 
they  had  said  "  Believe  and  be  faithful,  and 
God's  gracious  covenant  embraces  your 
household,  as  well  as  yourself."  And  this, 
again,  corresponds  with  our  Saviour's  decla- 
ration to  Zaccheus,  who  was  the  only  belie- 
ver in  his  family.  "  This  day  is  salvation  come 
to  this  house,  for  as  much  as  he  also  is  a  son, 
of  Abraham"  Luk.  xix.  9.  By  becoming 
a  believer  in  Christ,  he  became  a  son  of  A- 
braham;  and  by  becoming  a  son  of  Abra- 
ham, "salvation"  by  virtue  of  the  Abra- 
hamic  covenant,  "  came  to  his  housed 

A  similar  peculiarity  is  observable  in  the 
narrative  of  Lydia's  conversion.  We  are 
distinctly  informed  that  "the  Lord  opened 
her  heart"  but  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  is 
there,  that  any  more  of  her  household  were 
converted.  To  infer  this  from  their  baptism , 
is,  as  in  the  case  of  the  jailer,  begging  the 
question.  "  And  when  she  was  baptized  and 
her  household,  she  besought  us,  saying,  If  ye 
have  judged  me  to  be  faithful, . Si 'c."  evidently 
implying  that  she  was  the  only  believer  in  the 
family.  Hence,  it  is  evident  that  these  in- 
stances afford  a  plain  recognition  of  tbeorigi- 
ginal  covenant,  and  consequently  of  infant 
baptism.  The  same  observation  may  be 
made  on  1  Gar.  vii.  14.  "For  the  unbelieving 
husband  is  sanctified,  kc.  else  were  your  chil- 
dren unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy." 

Leb.  But,  sir,   I  have  often  heard  it  said, 
that  the  apostle,   in  this  passage,  was  not 
18* 


S*9 

treating  of  infant  baptism,  but  of  the  law- 
fulness  of  believers  and  idolaters  dwelling 
together  as  husband  and  wife.  And  I  find 
that  this  is  the  idea  of  the  writer  of  the  dis- 
course to  which  I  have  already  referred; 
and  he  adds,  "The  apostle  teaches,  in  this 
"  passage,  that  the  unbelief  of  one,  did  not 
"render  the  marriage  covenant  void,  else 
"  were  your  children  unclean,  born  out  of 
"marriage,  or  illegitimate  ;  but  now,  he 
"  adds,  they  are  holy  or  sanctified,  as  common 
"food  is  said  to  be  sanctified  by  the  word 
"of  God  and  prayer:  i.  e.  rendered  fit  for 
"  use.  If  the  circumstance  of  being  sanctified 
"  in  the  sense  here  used  by  the  apostle,  is  all  that 
"is  necessary  to  baptism,  common  food  is  also 
"  the  subject  oj  baptism" 

Eug.  Who  ever  supposed  or  intimated 
that  the  apostle  was  treating  here  on  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism,  either  of  infants  or  adults  ? 
nor  is  such  an  idea  necessary  to  the  argu- 
ment that  is  founded  on  this  text.  And  that 
he  does  not  use  the  terms  "sanctified"  and 
"holy"  as  implying  inherent  holiness,  is  pre- 
cisely what  we  wish  to  have  admitted.  But 
"we  do  believe  that  he  makes  allusion  in  this 
passage  to  the  relation  between  parents  and 
their  children,  and  so  does  your  author, 
though  he  applies  it  to  quite  a  different  ob- 
ject. And  we  are  in  the  habit  of  supposing 
that  he  uses  the  words  "  sanctified"  and  " ho- 
ly1' in  their  primitive  sense,  as  implying 
something  "  separated"  or  "set  apart"  from 
a  common  to  a  special  use,     Thus  the  se- 


2li 

venth  day — the  first-born — the  tabernacle— 
the  temple,  with  all  its  furniture — the  altar 
— the  sacrifices— the  tythes — dedicated  hou- 
ses and  fields,  &c.  &c.  were  sanctified  under 
the  law;  that  is,  they  were  "separated'"  or 
**  set  apart"  from  a  common  use  to  the  Lord's 
service.  And  I  have  always  supposed  that 
in  this  case,  the  apostle  uses  the  word  "  saric- 
tified"  in  application  to  common  food,  1  Tim. 
iv.  5.  and  I  verily  thought  that  this  was  es- 
teemed, by  all  Christian  denominations, 
the  orthodox  interpretation  of  that  text.  I 
never  knew  before,  (nor  do  1  believe  it  nowj 
that  common  food  is  not  "jit  for  use"  until 
a  blessing  is  asked  upon  it.  I  did  not  know 
that  this  pious  practice  rendered  our  food 
any  better.  I  always  supposed  that  the 
Christian  observed  it,  not  to  make  his  food 
"Jit  for  use  "  but  as  an  acknowledgment 
that  his  mercies  are  from  God,  and  are  to 
be  used  in  his  service.  In  other  words,  as  a 
solemn  dedication  or  "separation"  or  " set- 
ting apart"  of  his  food  to  the  service  of  his 
Maker.  If  this  is  not  the  true  import  of  the 
passage,  it  remains  to  be  proved  what  its 
true  meaning  is  ;  for  I  am  sure  no  "consi- 
derate" man  will  adopt  the  interpretation 
your  author  has  given.  If  he  were  correct, 
no  epicure  would  live  withoutachaplain;and 
all  the  people  of  the  world  would  pay  some 
more  respect  to  religious  duties.  They  are 
as  fond  of  eating  food  that  is  "jit  for  use"  as 
Christians  are. 

But  we  have  not  yet  arrived  at  the  cli- 


212 

max  of  absurdity  !  After  quoting  a  passage 
as  precisely  parallel  to  the  one  under  con- 
sideration, your  author  tells  us,  that  in  one, 
the  term  means  "jit  for  use;"  and  in  the 
other  "  legitimate"  or  "  born  in  marriage" 
This  is  a  striking  parallelism  indeed. — But 
suppose  it  were  complete,  what  then?  Did 
the  apostle  intend  to  pronounce  the  children 
of  those  who  entered  into  marriage  without 
faith  in  Christ,  illegitimate  I  This  would  in- 
deed be  a  fine  compliment  to  the  people  of 
the  world.  Or,  did  he  only  mean  to  tell  us, 
that  the  mutual  children  of  a  believer  and  un- 
believer, who  had  been  joined  in  marriage  ac- 
cording to  Divine  institution  previous  to  the 
conversion  of  the  one,  were  not  bastardized 
by  that  circumstance  ?  This  would  be  an 
equally  fine  compliment  to  the  "common 
sense"  of  the  Christian.  He  must  have  a 
revelation  from  heaven  to  inform  him,  that 
the  faith  of  Christ  does  not  make  void  the 
marriage  contract*  And  yet  this  is  the  result 
of  your  authors  exposition.  Admirable 
theology  and  logic  ! ! 

Now  Lebbeus,  turn  your  attention  to  the 
interpretation  which  1.  have  given,  and  which 
is  supported  by  a  hundred  texts  of  scripture. 
Understand  the  apostle  as  telling  a  believing 
parent,  that  tlie  unbelief  o[  his  partner  does 
not  exclude  their  household  from  the  bles- 
sings of  the  covenant ;  but  that  in  conse- 
quence of  the  faith  of  one,  their  common 
children  are  Ao/y,  that  is,  not  yet  possessed 
oi  inherent  holiness,  but  "  separated  or  set 


213 

apart"  for  the  Lord,  to  be  trained  up  in  his 
service.  And  is  not  this  a  natural  and  con- 
sistent interpretation  of  the  text ;  and  does 
it  not  evidently  establish  infant  member- 
ship ? 

Leb.  Well,  if  we  admit  that  this  is  the 
case,  still  it.  is  asked  "  What  good  can  it  do 
to  baptize  infants  ?" 

Mug.  And  on  the  same  ground  I  may  ask, 
"  What  good  can  it  do  to  baptize  adults  ?" 
Does  the  soul  derive  any  benefit  from  the 
application  of  water  to  the  body  ? — But 
stop.  Are  we  to  be  the  judges  of  the  pro- 
priety or  impropriety  of  Divine  ordinances  ? 
If  so,  then  there  is  no  security  for  any  posi- 
tive institution  of  Heaven.  On  this  ground 
Abraham  might  have  demured  and  said, 
"  Lord  what  good  can  it  do  to  put  the  seal  of 
MY  faith  on  my  children  eight  days  old?" 
But  no  !  Abraham  had  too  much  respect  for 
Divine  authority,  and  he  set  too  high  a  value 
on  that  gracious  covenant  which  God  had 
condescended  to  make  with  him,  in  behalf 
of  his  seed,  to  hesitate  a  moment.  He  em- 
braced it  as  a  privilege  that  must  gladden 
the  heart  of  every  pious  parent. — In  order 
to  ascertain  the  obligation  of  a  divine  pre- 
cept, we  have  no  business  to  inquire,  what 
good  the  observance  of  it  can  do  ?  Our  only 
legitimate  inquiry  is,.  "Has  God  enjoined 
it?"  That  he  has,  in  this  instance,  has  been 
proved. — But  when  the  duty  is  acknowledg- 
ed, there  is  no  impropriety  in  our  contem- 
plating the,  advantages  resulting  from  thai 


214 

duty,  as  an  encouragement  and  excitement 
to  fidelity.  Therefore,  I  invite  you,  to  re- 
view what  has  been  already  said  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  then  say,  if  there  is  not  encourage- 
ment enough  held  out  in  God's  gracious  pre- 
mise, to  overwhelm  the  pious  parent'*  soul 
with  joy  and  gratitude.  To  have  the  prospect 
of  seeing  his  children  sanctified  through  the 
instrumentality  of  his  labours,  must  be  a 
most  powerful  stimulus  to  parental  fidelity. 
And  from  the  evidence  adduced,  I  am  war- 
ranted to  say,  that  in  those  families  where 
faithful  instruction  and  discipline,  support- 
ed by  pious  example  and  daily  prayer,  are 
maintained,  there  is  as  much  more  reason 
to  expect  the  sanctification  of  their  children, 
than  of  those  who  neglect  these  duties,  as 
there  is  to  expect  the  salvation  of  those,  who 
diligently  and  devoutly  attend  onthe  means 
of  grace,  rather  than  of  those  who  are  desti- 
tute of  them. 

It  is  remarkable,  Lebbeus,  that  scarcely 
a  single  objection  is  brought  forward,  by 
your  denomination,  against  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  but  what  was  anticipated  and  an- 
swered by  St.  Pan!.  "  What  advantage  then 
hath  the  Jew  1  and n hat  profit  is  there  of  cir- 
cvmcision  ?"  is  the  question  which  he  ex- 
pected some  would  ask,  and  is  virtually  the 
same  which  you  have  proposed.  But  he 
does  not  answer  it,  as  though  he  considered 
circumcision  a  badge  of  carnal  descent,  of 
token  of  a  mere  national  covenant.  "  Much 
every  rvai/  ;  chiefly ,  because  that  unto  them 


815 

were -committed  the  oracles  of  God."  Here, 
nothing  is  said  about  the  land  of  Canaan  or 
other  temporal  blessings,  as  constituting  the 
principle  advantages  resulting  from  that 
covenant.  But,  they  had  the  oracles  of  God, 
by  virtue  of  which  their  children  enjoyed 
the  privilege  of  a  religious  education,  which, 
according  to  the  Divine  constitution,  was 
the  appointed  means  of  their  salvation. — 
The  very  same  advantages  result  from  in- 
fant baptism. 

Leb.  You  speak  of  these  duties,  as  though 
their  performance  depended  on  the  obser- 
vance of  infant  baptism.  But  cannot  we 
discharge  them  without  having  our  children 
baptized  ? 

Eug.  I  consider  human  nature  as  it  is, 
for  in  this  light  the  Lord  regards  it.  Every 
man  needs  some  excitement  to  the  perfor- 
mance of  what  he  knows  to  be  his  duty; 
and  hence  the  Lord  has  seen  fit  to  require 
his  people  to  bind  themselves  by  covenant. 
And  that  this  is  necessary  in  the  case  of 
parental  duty,  I  will  appeal  to  your  own  ex- 
perience and  observation. — As  to  domestic 
worship,  that  stands  on  the  same  foundation, 
in  your  church,  with  infant  baptism — with- 
out explicit  warrant ;"  and  hence  your  peo- 
ple feel  at  liberty  to  observe  it  or  not,  ac- 
cording to  their  own  pleasure.  It  is  also 
notorious  that  you  discountenance  the  prac- 
tice of  catechising  your  children  ;  though 
there  are  but  two  or  three  answers  in  the 
Assembly's  Shorter  Catechism  that  inter- 


216 

fere  with  your  system.  Go  into  any  school 
in  this  region  of  country,  to  hear  the  chil- 
dren recite  this  precious  "  form  of  Sound 
words,"  and  you  find  a  number  who  do  not 
engage  in  the  exercise.  Ask  the  teacher, 
the  reason?  His  reply  is,  "  Their  parents 
are  Baptists  or  Quakers"  And  after  all,  it 
would  be  well  if  our  children  could  per- 
forin this  duty,  without  being  told  by  their 
school  fellows,  that  "their  catechism  is  all 
the  work  of  man,  and  therefore  they  are  not 
to  receive  what  is  therein  taught  as  the  truth 
of  Jehovah."  I  speak  plainly,  Lebbeus,  be- 
cause these  things  are  notorious  facts  in  this 
part  of  the  world  ;  and  I  have  often  been 
ready  to  believe,  that  your  people  were  de- 
termined to  prove,  by  awful  experiment, 
the  sentiment  they  profess,  "that  their  chil- 
dren are  no  more  likely  to  be  converted,  than 
the  chidren  of  their  most  irreligious  neigh- 
bours" I  shall  join  with  them  in  this  opin- 
ion, as  far  as  it  respects  their  own  church, 
if  the  facts  which  I  have  noticed,  extend 
throughout  your  communion.  But  in  the 
very  acknowledgement  of  the  sentiment,  I 
discover  an  important  reason  for  requiring 
parents  to  dedicate  their  children  to  God, 
and  enter  into  solemn  covenant  to  be  faithful 
to  their  soids. 

Leb.  But  if  children  are  proper  subjects 
of  baptism,  are  they  not  as  capable  of  the 
benefits  of  the  Lord's  supper? 

Eug.  Though  both  ordinances  are  holy 
seals  of  the  same  covenant ;  it  does  not  fol- 


217 

low,  that  all  who  receive  the  one,  must  in> 
mediately  receive  the  other.  They  are  both 
positive  institutions  ;  and  therefore  their  ap- 
plication depends  entirely  on  the  will  of 
the  Instil utor.  They  are  evidently  design- 
ed for  different  ends.  Baptism  is  a  mark  of 
membership  in  the  church.  Hence  it  is  to 
be  applied  as  soon  as  that  membership  is 
constituted,  and  therefore  is  not  to  be  re- 
peated ;  for  when  the  mark  is  once  placed 
on  the  subject,  the  end  is  answered.  But 
the  Lord's  supper  is  not  so.  Besides  being 
a  seal  of  the  covenant,  it  is  one  of  the  means 
of  nourishing  the  Christian,  and  building 
him  up  in  the  most  holy  faith  ;  and  there- 
fore is  to  be  frequently  celebrated.  Hence, 
though  children  are  to  be  baptized  as  soon 
as  may  be,  to  recognise  them  as  "  separated" 
to  the  Lord,  in  consequence  of  their  con- 
nexion with  believing  parents ;  yet  they  are 
not  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  table,  till 
they  are  capable  of  making  a  personal  ac- 
knowledgment of  the  covenant,  and  "  have 
knowledge,"  both  speculative  and  experi- 
mental, "to  discern  the  Lord's  body." 

Leb.  But  do  you  not  consider  your  bap- 
tized children,  to  all  intents  and  purposes, 
members  of  the  church  ? 

Eug.  With  respect  to  the  nature  of  their 
standing,  there  is  some  diversity  of  opinion 
in  our  church.  But  after  all,  that  difference 
is  not  so  great  as  is  generally  imagined. — 
The  main  question  is,  "  Whether  their  stan- 
ding is  such,  as  to  require  the  church  to  cut 
19 


2i  a 

tfhem  off',  by  a  formal  act  of  excommunication, 
in  case  they  continue  impenitent  and  incorri- 
gible ?"  But  the  view  that  has  been  given  of 
the  subject,  I  think,  affords  a  plain  and  con- 
sistent answer  to  this  question.     The  entire 
connexion  of  children  with  the    church  is 
through  their  parents.     It  is  not  their   act 
whit  h   makes  them  members  of  the  church, 
any  moie  than  of  the  commonwealth  under 
which  they  Jive  ;  but  their  being   born  un- 
der an  established  constitution.     Hence  as 
long  as  their  connexion  with  their  parents 
subsists;  that  is,  as  long  as  they  form  .mem- 
bers of  the  family  and  are  subject  to  paren- 
tal control,   so  long  they  are  subject  to  the 
church  and  liable  to  its  discipline.     But  ob- 
serve, here,  the   discipline  of  the   church 
must  follow  the  course  of  the  connexion. 
The  connexion  is  through  the  parent,   and 
therefore  tire  discipline  of  children  must  be 
exercised  through  the  parent.     The  church 
can  enforce  discipline  on  her  baptized  chil- 
dren, no  further  than  she  can  require   their 
parents  to  enforce  it.     If  they  should  refuse 
to  execute  her  commands,  or  forbid  their 
children   to  submit   to  her  authority,  the 
church  has   no  power  to  take  them  out  of 
their  hands.     In  that  case,  she  could  excom- 
municate the  parents  for  disobedience  ;  but 
by  the  very  same  act,  the  children  would  be 
cut  off  with  them.     For  the  parent  is  the 
intermediate  link  that  connects  the  children 
with  the  church;    when  this  link  is  broken, 
their  connexion  is,  of  course,  dissolved. — 


219 

Tftie  excommunicated  person  has  no  more 
connexion  with  the  church,  than  if  he  had 
never  been  a  member.  And  hence,  his  chil- 
dren stand  in  the  same  relation  that  they 
would  have  done,  it*  he  had  never  belonged 
to  it.  This  is  one  way  in  which  the  Lord 
visits  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  upon  the 
children.  And  doubtless  a  regard  to  the 
welfare  of  his  children,  as  well  as  to  his  own 
personal  safety,  is  designed  to  operate  as  a 
motive  to  induce  the  Christian  to  walk  wor- 
thy of  his  high  vocation. — That  this  mode 
of  connexion  between  baptized  children  and 
the  church,  is  according  to  the  common  un- 
derstanding of  Psedobaptists,  is  evident  from 
this  simple  fact:  that  when  parents  are  dis- 
missed from  one  branch  of  the  church  to  join 
another,  the  relation  of  their  children  is,  by 
the  same  act,  considered  as  transferred; 
though  not  a  word  is  said  about  them  in  the 
act  of  transfer. 

As  a  further  confirmation  of  these  views 
it  may  be  remarked,  that  under  the  former 
dispensation,  when  a  child  would  not  sub- 
mit to  parental  control,  the  parents  were 
commanded  to  bring  him  before  the  elders 
of  the  city.  Deut.  xxi.  18 — 21.  Here  it  is 
obvious,  that  the  parents'  authority  is  re- 
garded as  the  means  of  bringing  him  before 
the  church.  If  they  had  neglected  or  refu- 
sed to  do  so,  the  elders  had  no  authority  to 
arraign  him.  And  when  he  was  brought, 
there  was  no  way  provided  to  cut  him  off 
from  the  church,  but  to  cut  film  off  from  the 
parents,  by  dissolving  the  relation  between 


220 

them.  Hence,  he  was  condemned  to  be 
stoned  to  death.  And  although  under  the 
gospel,  capital  punishment,  in  this  and  oth- 
er cases,  is  annulled ;  yet  the  same  mode  of 
connexion  between  the  church  and  her  bap- 
tized children,  is  distinctly  exhibited.  The 
command  to  parents  is  "  Submit  yourselves 
to  those  who  have  the  rule  over  you ,"  and 
"  Train  up  your  children  in  the  nurture  and 
admonition  of  the  Lord:"  To  children  "  Obey 
your  parents" — The  church  is  to  command 
parents,  and  parents  are  to  command  their 
children;  and  if  churches  and  parents  were 
both  faithful,  the  blessed  fruits  of  this  Divine 
constitution  would  be  daily  realized;  and 
this  I  think  would  be  found  to  be  all  the 
discipline  necessary  for  baptized  children. 
If  this  view  of  the  subject  be  correct,  the 
point  is  decided  with  respect  to  a  formal  act 
of  excommunication.  There  are  but  two 
ways  in  which  you  can  cut  off  baptized 
children.  One  is  by  excommunicating  their 
parents;  the  other,  by  dissolving  the  rela- 
tion between  them  and  their  parents.  The 
latter  the  church  cannot  do,  at  least  in  the 
manner   formerly    practised:*      The    for- 


*  Although  llie  church  does  not  now  possess  the  power  of  in- 
flicting  capital  punishments,  yet  there  is  a  way  in  which  the 
connexion  between  parents  and  children  may  be  dissolved  with- 
out taking  life.  They  may  be  excluded  from  the  household. 
And  suppose  a  child  should  abandon  himself  to  debauchery, 
drunkenness  and  other  vices,  and  refuse  to  submit  to  parental 
control,  it  is  a  serious  question  whether,  after  every  means  has 
been  used  for  his  reformation  and  he  remains  incorrigible,  he 
ought  not  to  be  excluded  from  the  family  ?  However  painful 
this,  would  be  to  parental  feelings,  might  not  the  honour  of  reli- 
gion,  the  credit  of  the  family  and  the  morals  of  the  other  mem 
iters  of  the  household  require,  the  sacrifice  ? 


221 

mer  she  will  not,  as  long  as  the  parents  do 
all  that  she  requires.  But  when  their  con- 
nexion with  their  parents  ceases,  that  is,  so 
far  that  they  are  not  subject  to  parental 
authority;  when  children  cease  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  parents'  family  and  set  up  an  in- 
dependent interest  for  themselves,  in  that 
same  instant,  their  connexion  with  the 
church  ceases,  if  they  have  not  previously 
made  a  voluntary  surrender  of  themselves 
to  God.  But  then  the  church  cannot  ex- 
communicate them,  because  their  connex- 
ion with  the  church  is  already  dissolved. 

Leb,  I  have  always  understood  that  you 
consider  your  baptized  children  under  spe- 
cial obligations  to  own  the  Lord  as  their 
God;  but  this  doctrine  appears  to  leave 
them,  after  all,  to  act  as  they  please. 

Eug.  We  do  indeed  consider  our  chil- 
dren under  special  obligations.  These, 
however,  proceed,  not  from  any  personal  act 
of  their  own,  but  from  the  enjoyment  of 
those  peculiar  privileges  which  result  from 
the  constitution  under  which  they  were 
born.  In  no  other  light  can  their  obliga- 
tions be  considered  or  enforced.  On  this 
ground  we  may  urge  them  to  duty,  and  con- 
vince them  of  their  guilt  in  neglecting  it. 
But  we  could  never  make  them  feel  a  con- 
sciousness of  guilt  in  the  violation  of  vows 
which  they  never  made.  Obligations,  re- 
sulting from  the  source  I  have  mentioned, 
will  be  binding  upon  them  to  their  dying 
day.  They  can  never  divest  themselves  of 
19* 


2^2 

these  bonds.  But  by  neglecting  to  discharge 
the  duty  which  those  obligations  impose, 
they  may  cut  themselves  off  from  the  bles- 
sings of  the  covenant.  So  far,  then,  from 
leaving  them  to  act  as  they  please,  this  doc- 
trine imposes  their  duty  under  the  most  so- 
lemn penalty.  A  penalty  inflicted,  as  it 
were,  by  their  own  hand. 

Leb.  But  does  not  this  render  infant- bap- 
tism a  nullity  ? 

Mug.  No  more  than  in  the  case  of  an  ex- 
communicated member.  Baptism  does  not 
communicate  grace,  either  to  adults  or  in- 
fants. It  is  a  seal  or  pledge  of  special  pri- 
vileges. These  privileges,  in  the  case  of  in- 
fants, result  from  their  connexion  with  pi- 
ous parents.  While  this  connexion  subsists, 
they  enjoy  a  peculiar  season  of  probation. 
If  they  pass  through  this,  without  becoming 
pious,  and  taking  upon  themselves  the  bonds 
of  the  covenant,  their  "  circumcision  is  made 
uncircumcision  ;"  and  they  are  to  be  consid- 
ered in  the  same  light  as  though  they  had 
never  been  baptized.  The  pledge,  certain- 
ly, can  exist  no  longer  than  the  privileges, 
of  which  it  is  a  seal,  exist.  The  bible  knows 
nothing  of  children  40,  50  and  even  70  years 
of  age  in  a  slate  of  minority  ;  while,  perhaps, 
they  are  at  the  same  time,  parents  and  heads 
of  families  of  their  own. 

Leb.  But  if  I  should  become  a  Paedobap- 
tist,  I  should  be  loath  to  adopt  a  scheme  that 
would  cut  off  from  the  church,  so  many 
who  had  been   baplized.    Besides,  when 


223 

any  of  them  were  afterwards  converted,  now* 
should  they  be  received  ?  Must  they  be  bap* 
tized  again  ? 

Eug.  This  objection  is  founded  entirely 
on  the  present  unfaithfulness  of  parents  and 
the  churches.  If  child  rem  were  faithfully 
brought  up — if  they  were  urged  to  the  im- 
provement of  their  privileges  while  they  en- 
joyed them;  and  understood  that  the  mo- 
ment they  left  the  parental  roof,  they  would 
step  out  of  the  territory  of  the  church,  I  ap- 
prehend, there  would  be  little  need  of  a  more 
extensive  plan  than  that  which  I  am  advoca- 
ting. No  consideration  could  be  better  cal- 
culated to  impress  the  youthful  mind.  They 
would  tremble  at  the  thought  of  taking  the 
awful  step,  that  must  sever  them  from  the 
church  of  God  and  from  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant.  In  the  faithful  use  of  the  appoint- 
ed means,  we  might  generally  expect  our  chil- 
dren to  experience  saving  blessings,  before 
they  leave  the  family  altar. — As  to  the  re- 
ception of  those  who  might  be  converted  af- 
terwards there  is  no  difficulty  in  the  ca*e,  a- 
ny  more  than  in  the  restoration  of  an  excom- 
municated person,  who  gives  evidence  of 
sincere  repentance  :  and  this  difficulty  is  not 
peculiar  to  our  scheme  ;  it  occurs  as  often 
in  Baptist  churches  as  in  ours.  Suffice  ii 
to  say,  that  in  our  connexion,  we  do  not 
consider  rebaptism,  in  such  a  case,  either  ne- 
cessary or  allowable.* 

*  The  Baptists  are  by  no  means  agreed  on  this  c;-se.    Some  say, 
if  a  member  of  their  church  should  prove  an  apostate,  and  give  «?- 


22  i 

Lcb.  Still  there  is  one  objection  which,  I 
think,  militates  powerfully  against  your 
plan,  If  the  dissolution  of  the  connexion 
between  the  church  and  the  parents,  cuts  off 
the  children,  then  when  the  parents  are  re- 
moved by  death,  the  children  are  cut  off  from 
the  church. 

Eug.  There  is  no  weight,  at  all,  in  this 
objection.  It  is  the  aet  of  God  in  his  com- 
mon  providence  that  removes  the  parents,  in 
this  case  ;  and  that  not  as  a  punishment,  ei- 
ther on  them  or  their  children.  Hence,  it 
can,  in  no  sense,  be  considered  as  a  dissolu- 
tion of  the  constitution  of  the  church.  Be- 
sides if  they  are  real  Christians,  death  does 
not  cut  them  off  from  the  church:  it  only 
removes  them  to  another  and  more  exalted 
department  of  it.  Therefore  their  children 
hold  their  relation  to  the  church,  as  long  as 
they  would  have  done  if  their  parents  had 

idence  that  he  was  regenerated  afterwards*  he  must  be  rebapti- 
*ed.  Others,  with  propriety,  say,  that  as  they  cannot  tell  the 
state  of  the  heart,  and  as  the  man  has  already  been  baptized  on  a 
credible  profession  of  faith,  it  is  needless  to  repeat  it  since  they  are 
as  liable  to  be  mistaken  in  the  second  case  as  in  the  first.  *  But 
one  has  attempted  to  dispose  of  the  difficulty  in  a  summary  way. 
He  says,  "Such  a  case  cannot  occur  in  a  REGULAR  liaptist 
church,-  for  they  require  evidence  of  grace  in  the jirst instance, 
mid  they  can  receive  no  more  in  the  second'*  Rut,  does  this  man, 
like  the  enthusiastic  founders  of  his  sect,  claim  the  faculty  of  dis- 
cerning- spirits  ?  and  does  he,  on  this  ground,  mean  to  assert  that 
apostacies  never  occur  in  the  Baptist  church  ?  This  cannot  be, 
for  a  multitude  of  facts  declare  the  contrary. — Does  he  then  in- 
tend, that  those  who  have  once  apostatized,  are  never  restored 
to  the  communion  of  their  churches  ?  Here  again  facts  stare  him 
in  the  face.  Or,  does  he  mean  that  all  the  Baptist  churches  are 
JRregular  P  This  is,  undoubtedly,  the  fact,  whether  he  intended 
to  be  so  understood  or  not.  On  this  ground,  and  on  this  alone,  I 
credit  the  assertion. 


225 

lived.  And  herein  is  presented  the  mosl 
important  object  of  one  ecclesiastical  office, 
which  the  present  unfaithfulness  of  the 
church  has  rendered  almost  useless.  The 
office  of  "  deacon''  was  originally  instituted 
for  the  express  purpose  of  taking  care  of 
widowed  families.  It  is  still  the  duty,  and 
the  principal  duty  of  those  who  sustain 
that  office,  not  only  to  administer  to  the 
temporal  wants  of  such,  in  that  situation,  ag 
need  assistance  ;  but  especially  to  take  care 
of  their  spiritual  concerns — to  see  that  the 
orphan  children  of  the  church,  who  are  left 
without  a  parental  guardian,  are  placed  in  a 
situation  where  they  will  be  brought  up  un- 
der religious  instruction  and  discipline,  as 
becometh  the  children  of  saints. — What  an 
unspeakable  consolation  would  it  be  to  the 
poor  man  on  his  dying  bed,  to  have  the  as- 
surance that  his  dear  children,  whom  he  loves 
as  his  own  soul,  and  whom  he  is  about  to 
leave  without  a  cent  of  property,  will  not 
be  cast  upon  a  wide  unfeeling  world,  with- 
out a  pious  guardian,  but  will  immediately 
become  the  special  care  of  the  church.  This 
assurance,  methinks,  would  rob  the  "  king 
of  terrors"  of  his  last  sting.  For  myself  I 
can  say,  it  would  afford  me  more  satisfaction 
than  to  leave  them  thousands  of  silver  and 
gold. 

Leu.  And,  as  a  Christian,  I  must  say  I  can 
most  cheerfully  subscribe  to  the  same  sen- 
timent. Why,  Eugenius,  this  opens  a  new 
world  to  my  view*  How  is  it  possible  that 
I  have  been  so  blinded  before  X 


226 

Eug.  The  principal  reason  is,  you  have 
never  taken  the  trouble  to  investigate  our 
system  with  candour:  and  another  circum- 
stance, which  has  contributed  to  confirm 
your  prejudices  is,  that  our  churches  have 
conducted  so  little  according  to  their  profes- 
sion. During  the  last  century,  the  glory  of  the 
Pasdobaptist  church  has  been  veiled  in  ob- 
scurity, by  her  own  unfaithfulness.  The  in- 
troduction of  what  was  called  "  the  half-way 
covenant"  into  the  churches  of  JNew-En£- 
land — a  plan  on  which,  a  facetious  poet  just- 
ly represents  a  person  as  standing  with 

°  One  foot  secure  in  church's  pale, 
**  And  t'other  out  ot  doors," 

did  more  towards  pulling  down  the  Congre*- 
gational,  and  building  up  the  Baptist  church- 
es, than  any  other  event  that  has  ever  taken 
place.  From  that  period,  till  within  a  few 
years,  family  instruction  and  discipline  were 
constantly  declining.  And  in  other  portions 
of  the  Paedobaptist  church,  an  awful  laxness 
of  discipline  has  produced  similar  effects. — 
By  these  means,  a  generation  has  been  rais- 
ed up,  who,  instead  of  reproaching  their  pa- 
rents for  their  unfaithfulness,  have  taken  oc- 
casion to  revile  God's  gracious  covenant,  and 
triumphantly  inquire,  "  What  good  can  it  do 
to  baptize  children  /" 

But,  blessed  be  God,  we  hail  the  dawn  of 
brighter  days.  An  almost  universal  sensa- 
tion on  this  subject  is  felt  through  the  Psedo- 
baptist  church.  The  orthodox  churches  of 
New  England,  with  but  here  and  there  a  a. 


227 

exception, have  returned  to  gospel  order;  and 
what  is  truly  surprizing,  their  return  has 
even  been  more  rapid  than  their  departure 
was.  Other  churches  of  this  country  are  re- 
viving their  discipline,  and  appear  to  be  vie- 
ing  with  one  another,  as  if  to  see,  which  will 
do  most  for  the  instruction  and  restraint  of 
their  baptized  children.  God  is  daily  own- 
ing his  covenant  and  blessing  those  instruc- 
tions to  the  sanctification  of  souls.  The 
time  is  evidently  approaching,  when  "the 
hearts  of  the  fathers  shall  be  turned  to  their 
children,  and  the  hearts  of  the  children  to  their, 
fathers  /'  and  "the  Lord  will  pour  out  his  Spi- 
rit upon  their  seedy  and  his  blessing  upon  their 
offspring.  And  they  shall  spring  up  among 
the  grass  as  willows  by  the  water  courses.  One 
shall  say,  I  am  the  Lord's,  and  another  shall 
call  himself  by  the  name  of  Jacob,  and  anoth- 
er shall  subscribe  with  his  hand  unto  the  Lord 
and  surname  himself  by  the  name  of  Israel." 
Isa.  xliv.  3 — 5. 

Leb.  But  our  people  are  constantly  say- 
ing that  our  churches  are  increasing,  and 
that  yours  are  rapidly  decreasing.  What  is 
the  fact? 

Eug.  That  your  churches  have  increased 
in  this  country ;  and  that,  some  years  ago, 
they  did  so  at  our  expence,  I  have  admitted, 
and  have  shewn  you  the  true  cause.  But 
that  you  are  now  increasing  more  rapidly 
than  our  churches,  if  you  have  ever  heard 
it  asserted,  it  is  palpably  false.  I  have  of- 
ten heard  it  insinuated,  for  the  purpose  of 


228 

exciting  prejudice  against  our  system  ;  but 
I  have  never  yet  found  a  man  possessed  of 
sufficient  hardihood  to  assert  it  as  a  fact. 
Since  God  has  been  pouring  out  bis  Spirit 
so  remarkably  ol  late  years,  what  churches, 
that  make  any  pretensions  to  experimental 
godliness,  have  not  increased  ?  But  have 
none  but  yours  been  distinguished  with  the 
effusions  of  grace  ?  Have  ours  been  left  to 
languish  under  the  frowns  of  Heaven  ?  Let 
any  man  cast  his  eye  over  our  country,  and 
assert  these  as  facts,  if  he  dare. 

But  suppose  you  were  increasing,  and  all 
other  churches  decreasing,  what  would  that 
prove?  If  it  were  any  evidence  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  your  scheme,  the  time  has  been 
when  popery,  and  every  other  false  scheme 
of  religion,  even  infidelity  itself,  might  have 
urged  this  argument  in  their  favour.  In  fact, 
it  would  prove  nothing  but,  what  the  Lord 
has  been  pleased,  in  his  holy  providence,  to 
prove  a  thousand  times,  that  in  a  depraved 
and  ignorant  world,  error  may  sometimes  suc- 
ceed at  the  expence  of  truth  ?  On  the  whole, 
this  is  one  of  the  most  arrogant,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  weakest  arguments  that  your 
people  have  ever  urged. 

Leb.  But  many  of  our  people  say  they 
never  doubted  the  correctness  of  their  scheme, 
and  they  know  that  they  are  right. 

Eug.  And  pray  tell  me,  do  you  consider 
tbat  any  evidence  of  their  being  right  ?  Do 
not  the  advocates  of  error  usually  display 
greater  confidence,  and  far  less  modesty, 


229 

than  the  humble  defenders  of  truth?  Were 
not  the  Pharisees  of  old  as  confident  as  any 
of  your  denomination  are,  that  they  were 
right ;  and  yet  were  fatally  mistaken  ?  A 
man  may  be  very  confident ;  yea,  he  may 
be  sincere,  and  even  act  conscientiously  in  the 
defence  of  error.  So  did  Saul,  in  persecu- 
ting the  church. — So  do  multitudes  in  the 
present  day.  In  order  for  conscience  to  be 
right,  the  understanding  must  be  rightly  in- 
formed. "  A  good  conscience  is  regulated 
by  the  word  of  God."  But  "  if  sincerity 
and  a  peaceable  conscience  are  sufficient ;  a 
worshipper  of  Jupiter  may  be  in  as  fair  a 
way  for  heaven,  as  the  disciple  of  Christi" — 
You  may  be  as  confident  as  the  self-righ- 
teous Jews  were,  that  you  are  the  peculiar 
favourites  of  Heaven,  and  with  equal  arro- 
gance may  exclaim  "  The  temple  of  the  Lord, 
the  temple  of  the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord 
are  WE  ;"  you  may  regard  all  other  denomi- 
nations with  the  same  contempt  that  they 
did  the  Samaritans  ;  but  this  is  no  evidence 
that  you  have  any  better  title  than  they  had, 
to  that  exclusive  claim. 


SECTION  VIII. 

Eugenius.  Hitherto  I  have  acted  on  the 
defensive. — You  will  now  permit  me  to  en- 
ter the  lines  of  your  camp,  and  point  out  a 
few  of  the  deformities  of  your  own  system; 
some  of  which  are  usually  kept  concealed 
20 


230 

from  the  vulvar  eye.  In  the  first  place, 
your  system  leads  you  to  rejt  cl  the  divine 
authority  of  the  Christian  sabbatl). 

Leb.  What !  do  you  mean  that  we  do  not 
regard  the  sabbath  / 

Eug.  I  mean  just  what  I  say,  that  your 
system  does  not  regard  the  sabbath  as  a  di- 
vine institution.  1  am  not  at  all  surprised  at 
your  astonishment.  This  is  one  of  the 
secrets  of  your  scheme,  with  which  the  com- 
mon people  are  not  entrusted.  J  doubt  not 
that  the  great  body  of  your  people  suppose 
that  the  sabbath  is  of  divine  authority  ;  and 
your  knowing  ones  find  it  for  their  interest 
to  keep  them  in  ignorance  of  their  senti- 
ments on  this  point.  Conscientious  persons 
might  be  frightened  out  of  an  enclosure  in 
which  they  knew  such  a  monstrous  senti- 
ment was  maintained. 

Leb.  But  are  you  not  mistaken,  sir  ?  Do 
not  our  articles  of  faith  distinctly  acknow- 
ledge the  sabbath? 

Eng.  That  I  am  not  mistaken  I  will  soon 
convince  you.  As  to  your  articles  of  faith, 
I  shall  only  say,  that  articles  of  faith  are  one 
thing,  and  the  practice  of  those  who  pro- 
fess them  is  another.  This  is  an  exposition 
of  those  articles  ;  and  I  appeal  to  your  own 
observation,  whether  there  is  not  a  great 
degree  of  remissness  among  your  people  in 
sanctifying  the  sabbath  ?  Are  there  not  ma- 
ny things  done  on  that  holy  day  as  works  of 
necessity,  which  are  expressly  condemned 
by  the  word  of  God  ?  ["  In  earing  time  and  in 
harvest  thou  shalt  rest"  Ex.  xxxiv.  21.} 


231 

Leb.  Why  I  have  often  heard  it  said  that 
we  were  not  bound  to  keep  the  sabbath  as 
strictly  as  the  Jews  were. 

Eug.  This  sentiment  is  exactly  conform- 
able to  your  system,  and  on  this  ground 
your  sabbath  is  given  up:  for  if  you  are  not 
to  go  to  the  Old  Testament  to  Jearn  how 
to  sanctify  the  sabbath,  you  will  find  no  di- 
rection elsewhere.  Hence  it  is  evident,  that 
whatever  your  articles  of  faith  may  be,  in 
your  practice  the  sabbath  is  annulled.  And 
that  this  is  the  result  of  your  system  is  ma- 
nifest from  the  concessions  of  the  best  in- 
formed among  your  denomination.  Dr.  Gill 
labours  hard  to  prove  that  no  sabbath  ever 
existed  in  our  world  before  the  egress  of  Is- 
rael from  Egypt ;  and  that  it  was  an  institu- 
tion peculiar  to  the  Levitical  economy.  It 
is  true  that  he  seems  disposed  to  regard  the 
Christian  sabbath  as  a  day  of  worship,  and 
thinks  that  the  practice  is  sanctioned  by 
apostolic  example  :  but  he  says  expressly 
that  there  is  "  no  positive  preceptor  express 
command"  for  it.  This  is  the  strongest 
ground  that  any  of  your  denomination  have 
ever  taken  in  favour  of  the  sabbath.  But 
many,  perceiving  that  this  does  not  a- 
inount  to  any  thing  like  "  explicit  warrant," 
have  totally  rejected  it.  One  of  your  most 
intelligent  ministers  once  remarked  in  my 
hearing,  "  The  sabbath  is  the  best  piece  of  su- 
perstition that  ever  obtained  in  our  world. " — 
Having  an  opportunity  shortly  afterwards 
to  inquire  of  another  of  your  ministers,  as 
to  the  meaning  of  this  singular  expression, 


232 

be  frankly  replied,  "  We  do  not  consider  the 
sabbath  of  Divine  authority,  but  merely  as 
an  ordinance  of  the  church."  He  then  added, 
"  We  deem  it  a  very  important  institution, 
and  therefore  would  discipline  our  members 
if  they  did  not  regard  it."  I  answered,  "I 
am  no  advocate  for  priestcraft:  if  this  is  a 
mere  ordinance  of  the  church,  convince  me 
that  it  is  so,  and  I  will  tell  my  people  that 
those  of  them  who  are  church-members  must 
keep  the  sabbath,  but  those  who  are  not, 
may  labour  if  they  please."  "  Oh,"  said  he, 
"the  law  of  the  stale  requires  every  citizen 
to  abstain  from  labour  on  the  sabbath."  I 
replied,  "Very  true,  but  that  law  is  made 
under  the  conviction  that  the  sabbath  is  a 
divine  institution  :  convince  our  legislators 
that  this  is  a  mistake,  and  they  will  repeal 
it."  His  answer  was,  what  1  think  every 
Christian  and  good  citizen  will  approve,"/ 
believe  it  is  better  as  it  is."  He  moreover  sta- 
ted, in  the  course  of  the  conversation,  that  he 
bad  once  said,  he  would  as  soon  keep  Friday 
or  any  other  day  in  the  week  for  a  sabbath 
as  the  first  day,  if  his  church  should  ordain 
it;  but  candidly  acknowledged,  that  after 
having  had  the  trial,  he  thought  otherwise. 
Having  once  entered  into  mercantile  busi- 
ness with  a  seventh-day  Baptist,  in  a  place 
principally  inhabited  by  people  of  that  sen- 
timent, for  the  sake  of  accommodation  and 
saving  of  time,  he  conformed  to  their  prac- 
tice. "  But  after  living  a  few  months,"  said 
be,  "  a  stranger  to  a  quiet  conscience,  I  felt 
constrained  to  relinquish  the  concern." 


233 

I  give  this  man  credit  for  his  candour,  and 
1  think  his  scruples  did  honour  to  his  heart. 
And  does  it  not  manifestly  appear,  that,  al- 
though in  theory  he  rejected  the  divine  au- 
thority of  the  sabbath,  his  conscience  secret- 
ly acknowledged  it  ?  And  now  tell  me,  Leb- 
beus,  did  you  ever  hear  any  of  your  preach- 
ers, who  were  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
your  system,  attempt  to  prove  that  the 
Christian  sabbath  is  a  divine  institution  ? 

Leo.  I  have  sometimes  heard  them  preach 
on  the  importance  of  keeping  the  sabbath. 

Eug.  That  is  not  an  answer  to  my  ques- 
tion. Did  you  ever  hear  them  attempt  to 
shew,  from  the  word  of  God,  that  the  first 
day  of  the  week  is  to  be  sanctified  as  the 
Christian  Sabbath  I 

Leb.  Why  really,  as  to  that  point,  I  am 
not  able  to  answer.  I  never  thought  of  such 
a  distinction  before;  and  therefore,  when- 
ever I  have  heard  them  speak  of  the  sabbath,. 
I  took  it  for  granted  that  they  regarded  it 
as  a  divine  institution.  But  pray  tell  me,  how 
does  this  grow  out  of  our  system? 

Eug.  Do  you  not  perceive  ?  You  demand 
"explicit  warrant;"  for  all  that  you  believe* 
and  practice ;  but  there  is  no  <&  explicit  war- 
rant" for  the  change  of  the  sabbath.  This 
and  infant  baptism  stand  on  the  very  same 
ground,  as  to  mode  of  proof.  The  same  mode 
of  reasoning  that  establishes  the  Chris- 
tian sabbath  as  a  divine  institution,  gives  the 
same  claims  to  infant  baptism.  So  your  peo- 
ple, in  order  to  get  rid  of  one  which  they 
20* 


hate  with  perfect  hatred,  and  at  the  same 
time  be  self-consistent,  reject  both.  Hence, 
you  perceive  that  the  rejection  of  the  sab- 
bath is  a  necessary  part  of  your  system. — 
Some  of  your  denomination,  who  are  unwil- 
ling to  adopt  such  a  demoralizing  senti- 
ment, finding  no  explicit  warrant  in  the  New 
Testament  for  the  observance  of  the  first 
day,  and  considering  the  precept  of  the  4th 
commandment  as  relating  exclusively  to  the 
seventh  day,  observe  that  as  their  sabbath. 
Hence  they  are  denominated  Seventh-day 
Baptists.  And  1  must  confess  I  consider 
their  scheme  less  baleful  in  its  consequences 
than  yours.  However,  I  do  not  bJame  you 
for  the  total  rejection  of  the  sabbath,  that 
is,  on  the  supposition  that  you  are  determin- 
ed to  be  self  consistent  at  the  expense  of 
truth.  But  that  must  be  an  awful  system, 
which,  in  order  to  preserve  consistency,  leads 
to  such  results. 

After  all,  is  it  a  fact  that  your  system 
is  consistent?  Far  from  it : — there  are  some 
things,  for  which  you  might  plead  "  explicit 
warrant,"  that  you  do  not  regard ;  and  others, 
for  which  you  have  no  such  warrant,  which 
you  practise.  Why  do  you  not  observe  the 
washing  of  one  another's  feet;  (Job.  xiii.  14, 
15.)  and  "  anointing  the  sick  with  oil  ?  (Jam. 
v.  14.)  These  precepts  the  founders  of  your 
sect,  in  the  xvith  century,  felt  constrained 
to  obey  literally ;  and  I  see  no  reason,  on 
your  plan,  why  you  should  not  do  the  same. 
In  both  instances  the  precept  is  explicit; 


235 

but  you  have  no  "  explicit  warrant"  for  f& 
male  communion.  This,  therefore,  I  mention 
as  another  inconsistency  in  your  system. 

Leb.  You  are  doubtless  aware  that  Mr. 
Booth  and  others  deduce  an  explicit  war- 
rant for  female  communion  from  1  Cor.  xi. 
28.  by  shewing  that  the  Greek  word  render- 
ed "  wian"  in  that  passage,  is  a  generic 
term  including  women  as  well  as  men. 

Eug.  That  the  word  "*anlhroposyi  is  fre- 
quently used  in  that  manner,  1  do  not  dis- 
pute ;  but  that  it  is  always  used  thus,  Mr. 
B.  himself  dared  not  assert.  His  language 
is  extremely  cautious  ;  and  by  way  of  in- 
terrogation. He  asks  "  Does  not  the  word 
'  anthropos*  OFTEN  stand  as  a  name  of  our 
species  without  regard  to  sex?  Have  we 
not  the  authority  of  lexicographers,  and 
which  is  incomparably  more,  the  sanction  of 
common  sense,  for  understanding  it  thus  in 
that  passage?"  Suppose  it  is  often  used  in  that 
manner,  this  does  not  decide  the  point.  The 
question  is,  "  Is  it  always  used  so  ;  at  least 
in  the  New  Testament ?"  If  there  is  a  single 
exception,  the  explicit  warrant  is  destroyed. 
And  that  there  are  scores  of  exceptions, 
every  school-boy  knows. 

But  there  is  one  assertion  made  by  Mr. 
B.  with  respect  to  this  word  which  I  cannot 
pass  over  in  silence.  "  When  the  sexes  are 
distinguished  and  opposed,  says  he,  the  word 
for  a  man  is  not  '  anlhropos"  but  laneerJi9 
Does  he  mean  that  this  is  always  the  case  ? 
As  a  man  of  veracity  be  dared  not  assert  it ; 
though  his  language  seems  to  imply  it.     I 


236 

refer  to  the  following  texts  as  exceptions. 
Mat.  xix.  3,  5,  10.  Mar.  x.  7.  1  Cor.  vii.  1, 
Eph.  v.  3].  Rev.  ix.  7,  8.  In  all  these  pas- 
sages, the  sexes  are  distinguished  and  oppo- 
sed, as  the  English  reader  may  see  by  in- 
specting the  text;  and  yet  in  every  one  of 
them  the  word  "  anthropos"  and  not  "  aneer" 
is  used  to  distinguish  man  from  woman. — 
What  then  has  become  of  the  explicit  war- 
rant for  female  communion?  It  surely  can^ 
not  be  found  in  this  text. 

Lttb.  But,  sir,  there  are  other  texts  which 
are  referred  to  as  containing  this  warrant. 

Eug.  What  are  they  ?    Do  name  them. 

Leb.  The  author  to  whom  I  have  alrea- 
dy referred  more  than  once,  says,  "  Jesus 
commanded  his  disciples,  lliis  do  in  remem- 
brance of  mt." 

Eug.  Very  true;  but  there  were  no  fe- 
males present  when  he  gave  this  command. 

Leb.  I  acknowledge  it,  but  he  said  this 
to  his  disciples  ;  and  "  pious  females  are  in 
the  scriptures  called  disciples  ;  hence  pious 
females  feel  themselves  commanded  to  com- 
mune at  the  Lord's  table." 

Eug.  This  again  is  "  logical  reasoning," 
even  in  the  due  form  of  a  st/llogismy  and 
therefore  it  must  be  "  logic"  But  surely 
logical  reasoning  is  not  explicit  warrant.  If 
it  be,  then  there  is  abundance  of  "explicit 
warrant"  for  infant  baptism.  Butour  op- 
ponents say,  No  !  this  will  not  answer  :  this 
is  "  carnal  reason,"  which  can  never  war- 
rant a  religious  practice  ;   and  yet  they  re- 


237 

sort  to  the  same  method  to  justify  female 
communion  !  "  SHAME,  WHERE  IS 
THY  BLUSH!!  Mil"— 

Rut,  conceding  to  our  opponents,  what 
they  will  not  concede  to  us,  (for  their  cause 
needs  every  advantage,)  that  a  fair  deduc- 
tion from  scripture  premises,  is  explicit  war- 
rant, let  us  now  examine  your  author's  syl- 
logism, and  see  whether  it  is  fair  "  logical 
reasoning." — ".Jesus  commanded  his  disci- 
ples, This  do  in  remembrance  of  me — pious 
females  are  called  disciples — hence  pious 
females  FEEL  themselves  commanded  to 
commune  at  the  Lord's  table."  The  main 
fault  to  be  found  with  this  example  is,  that 
the  conclusion  is  not  contained,  in  the  premises. 
It  does  not  affirm  that  "pious  females  are 
commanded, &c."  but  merely  that  they  "feel 
themselves  commanded/'  These  may  be 
their  feelings,  and  yet  unless  it  is  proved 
that  their  feelings  are  correct, the  case  stands 
precisely  where  it  did  before  the  syllogism 
was  formed.  And  if  another  should  be 
made  to  establish  this  point,  and  the  conclu- 
sion should  be  expressed  in  similar  termsP 
the  point  at  issue  would  still  remain  without 
support.  And  thus  syllogisms  might  be 
multiplied  ad  infinitum,  without  proving  any 
thing.— -Rut  why  are  these  two  words  lug- 
ged in,  at  all?  A  "logical  reasoner"  surely 
would  not  have  done  so.  Do  you  suppose 
your  author  did  not  perceive  that  they  com- 
pletely destroyed  his  logic?  Why  did  he 
not  say  expressly,  "  Hence  pious  females 


238 

are  commanded  to  commune  at  the  Lord's 
table  V*.  Was  he  not  evidently  afraid  to  as- 
seit  tiial  which  he  knew  to  be  absolutely 
fal*e  ;  viz.  that  they  are  commanded  to  do 
so,  when  it  was  well  known  that  there  is  no 
such  command..  This  would  have  overset 
the  whole  ;  it  would  have  been  declaring  an 
"explicit  warrant,"  where  there  is  none. 

But  let  us  suppose  these  words  erased 
from  the  conclusion,  and  that  there  is  no 
impropriety  in  affirming,  that  pious  females 
are  commanded  to  do  what  they  are  not 
commanded.  I  will  test  the  correctness  of 
this  reasoning  by  a  syllogism  formed  on  the 
same  premises,  having  respect  to  another 
class  of  persons :  viz. 

Jesus  commanded  his  disciples,  "Tins  do  in  remembrance  of 
me." 

But  hypocrites,  or  persons  who  followed  Christ  merely  for 
the  loaves  and  fishes,  are,  in  the  scriptures,  called  disciples, 
See  John  vi.  66, 

Therefore  hypocrites,  or  those  who  follow  Christ  merely 
for  the  loaves  and  fishes,  are  commanded  to  commune  at  the 
Lord's  table. 

Now  I  submit  to  your  own  judgment 
whether  my  syllogism  does  not  prove  as 
much  as  yours?  This,  Lebbeus,  I  sincerely 
hope  is  the  last  example  of  such  "logical 
reasoning"  that  we  shall  have  in  our  inter- 
view. I  must  confess  I  am  weary  of  expo- 
sing such  contemptible  sophistry. 

Leb.  But,  sir,  you  will  permit  me  to  re- 
mark, that  "  the  mother  of  Jesus  and  other 
pious  women  were  of  the  number  of  disci- 
ples to  whom  the  3000  wTere  added ;  (Acts 
L  and  ii.)  a  part  of  the  3000  were  women  \ 


:39 


and  we  read  that   they,  not    somebody  else, 
continued    in  the   observance   of"  t bis  ordi- 


nance, ' 


Evg.  We  read  that  "  they  continued  daily 
with  one  accord  in  the  temple,  and  breaking 
bread  from  house  to  house,  eating  their  meat 
with  gladness  and  singleness  of  heart."  Acts 
ii.  46.  But  that  this  "  breaking  of  bread 
from  house  to  house,"  means  celebrating  the 
Lord's  supper,  remains  to  be  proved.  You 
mav  infer  it,  but  inference  is  not  explicit 
wan  ant.  You  must  be  awaie  that  very 
different  opinions  have  been  entertained  on 
this  passage,  by  those  who  have  had  no  view 
to  this  controversy  :  and  from  the  mode  of 
expression,  and  its  connexion,  I  appeal  to 
your  own  understanding,  whether  this  act 
does  not  refer  most  naturally  to  the  "  com- 
munity of  goods,"  spoken  of  in  the  prece- 
ding verse.  At  any  rate  it  is  not  explicit 
warrant,  for  the  thing  itself  is  very  ques- 
tionable. 

Leo.  I  will  trouble  you  with  but  one  more 
text;  and  that  is  1  Cor.  x.  17.  There  "  the 
apostle,  after  treating  expressly  of  the  rights 
and  duties  of  female  disciples,  says,  We  are 
all  partakers  o)  that  one  bread." 

Eug.  Lebbeus,  this  is  truly  an  astonish- 
ing contrivance.  The  apostle  does  indeed 
treat,  in  ttie  viith  chapter  of  this  Epistle,  on 
the  subject  of  marriage  and  the  respective 
duties  of  husbands  and  wives.  But  does  it 
follow  from  tins,  that  whatever  he  says  in 
the  subsequent  part  of  the  Epistle,  is  ad- 


240 

dressed  to  persons  initial  relation  ?  Thi* 
is  very  far  fiom  even  looking  like  "explicit 
warrant."  Besides  this,  the  apostle  com- 
mences an  entirely  new  subject  at  the  viiith 
chapter,  and  also  in  the  ixth  and  xth,  which 
have  no  more  respect  to  the  viith  than  one 
of  hi<epii4les  to  another  church.  And  what 
is  truly  remarkable  in  this  xth  chapter  to 
which  you  have  referred,  he  does  not  even 
once  mention  1  lie  female  sex  as  distinguished 
from  tiie  male.  He  begins  "  Moreover, 
brethren,  Sfc"  "Let  him  that  thinketb  he 
standeth  lake  heed  lest  he  fall,  &c." — 
"  There  hath  no  temptation  taken  you  but 
what  is  common  to  man.'"  "I  speak  as  to 
wise  men."  You  may  say  that  these  terms 
include  females,  and  I  believe  it;  but  this  is 
not  "  explicit  warrant." — It  is  vain,  Leb- 
be  us,  for  your  denomination  to  labour 
this  point.  It  is  out  of  their  power  to  ad- 
duce explicit  warrant  for  female  commu- 
nion. 

Leb.  But,  sir,  it  has  been  said,  "If  your 
denomination  have  any  doubts  about  the 
propriety  of  the  practice,  you  are  certainly 
bound  to  lay  it  aside,  till  the  matter  is  clear 
to  your  own  mind." 

Ens?.  The  fact  is,  we  have  no  doubts  on 
the  subject.  We  receive  female  communion 
on  the  same  ground,  that  we  do  infant  bap- 
tism, and  we  are  perfectly  satisfied  of  the 
correctness  of  our  conduct  in  both  cases. 
Our  only  reason  for  urging  it  against  you,  is, 
io  shew  that  you  are  inconsistent  with  your- 


241 

selves.  You  admit  one  practice  without 
"  explicit  warrant,"  and  reject  another  for 
the  want  of  "  explicit  warrant."  Hence,  we 
charge  you  with  inconsistency;  and  with  all 
your  "flouncing"  and  "logic"  and  "parade 
of  words"  and  appeals  to  "  lexicographers" 
and  "  common  sense,"  vou  cannot  clear 
yourselves  of  the  charge. 

I  now  remark  another  awful  result  of your 
system.  It  leads  you  to  reject  the  whole  of 
the  Old  Testament,  as  being  any  part  of  the 
revealed  will  of  Heaven  to  the  Christian 
church.  This  charge  I  know  is  as  often  re- 
pelled as  it  is  made,  and  yet  the  ground  of  it 
is  as  often  renewed.  I  do  not  accuse  you 
of  denying  the  inspiration  of  the  law  and  the 
prophets,  as  the  ancient  hereticks  did.  But 
your  sentiment  in  practice  amounts  to  near- 
ly the  same  thing.  With  the  Old  Testament 
church,  the  Old  Testament  itself  is  thrown 
away.  If  any  reference  is  made  to  it  to 
prove  a  Christian  duly,  your  only  answer 
is,  "  That  is  all  done  away — it  is  no  rule 
for  the  faith  or  practice  of  Christians."  And 
hence  we  might  as  well  quote  the  Talmud 
or  Alcoran  to  prove  a  Christian  duty,  as  the 
ancient  oracles  of  God.  You  can  dispose 
of  the  authority  of  the  latter,  as  easily  as 
that  of  the  former. 

Again;  your  system  virtually  excommu- 
nicates the  great  body  of  the  real  disciples 
of  Christ.  You  reject  communion  with  tl;e 
whole  Pffidohaptist  church,  which,  some  cf 
your  denomination  are  arrogant  enough  to 
affirm,  is  not  a  church  of  Christ.  If  so,  pray, 
21 


242 

bow  long  was  Jesus  Christ  without  a  church 
on  earth?  I  have  proved  that  the  whole 
church  was  Paedobaptist  for  1500  years. — 
Dr.  Gill  admits  that  there  is  no  evidence  to 
the  contrary  during  700  years.  What  then 
has  become  of  the  promise  of  Chi  1st  that 
"  the  gates  of  hades  shall  not  prevail  against 
it?"  The  church  has  always  been  "a  little 
flock"compared  with  the  unbelieving  world: 
but  if  all  that  practise  infant  baptism  are  to 
be  excluded  from  the  fold,  she  was  during  a 
long  period  extinct y  and  even  now,  she  is  a 
very  "little  flock."  In  some  nations,  which 
have  been  called  Christian  for  ages,  she  has 
scarcely  a  single  altar. 

Close  communion  is  deemed  essential  to 
self-consistency  on  your  plan  :  but  again  I 
say  that  must  be  an  awful  plan,  which,  to 
maintain  self  consistency,  leads  to  such  re- 
sults. I  must  confess,  it  has  "  a  frightful  as- 
pect :"  not,  however,  "  to  the  uninformed 
and  less  conscientious  part  of  the  Christian 
•world  ;"  but  to  the  intelligent  and  conscien- 
tious Christian.  Yea,  the  more  information 
he  possesses,  and  the  more  susceptible  his 
conscience  is,  the  more  "odious"  will  the 
practice  appear. — Whence  is  it  that  your 
most  intelligent  and  conscientious  converts 
often  exhibit  such  extreme  reluctance  to 
join  your  churches,  even  after  they  feel 
persuaded  that  your  mode  is  right  ?  Do  they 
not  tell  you,  that  they  tremble  to  take  the 
awful  step  which  must  exclude  from  their 
fellowship  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 


243 

of  the  sincere  and  bumble  friends  of  Jesus  ? 
And  every  expedient  is  used  to  obscure 
their  correct  views,  and  steel  their  conscien- 
ces against  these  pious  affections,  before 
they  can  be  made  willing  to  pass  the  Rubi- 
con, that  separates  the  great  body  of  the 
church  from  their  Christian  communion, 
Mriny  are  beguiled  by  being  told  that  they 
can  have  spiritual  communion  with  all 
real  Christians ;  and  even,  entertain  the  sen- 
timent of  free  communion,  without  prac^ 
tising  it.  But  the  intelligent  and  conscien- 
tious Christian  is  not  to  be  duped  by  such 
means.  He  cannot  discharge  his  conscience 
by  feeling  right,  without  the  privilege  of  act- 
ing right. 

For  further  evidence  that  close  commu- 
nion is  most  abhorrent  to  the  most  intelligent 
and  conscientious,  you  may  recur  to  facts. 
Cast  your  eye  over  the  water,  behold  the 
learned  and  catholic  Robekt  Hall,  who 
stands  second  to  none  in  the  Baptist  church 
in  England.  Deeply  convinced  of  the  im- 
propriety of  the  sentiment  that  excommu- 
nicates all  the  followers  of  Jesus  who  are 
not  found  within  the  narrow  pale  of  his 
church,  he  has  boldly  denounced  it,  and 
written  a  volume,  which  has  already  gone 
through  several  editions,  to  prove  its  absur- 
dity. Nor  has  he  laboured  in  vain.  His 
worthy  example  has  been  followed  by  sev- 
eral of  his  brethren  both  in  England  and  A- 
merica,  and  is  daily  gaining  ground.  Such 
facts  need  no  comment.     They  speak  vol- 


244 

times  to  the  world;  and  while  they  afford 
singular  evidence  of  individual  piety,  they 
till  your  camp  with  trembling. — It  is  true, 
the  step  which  these  distinguished  individu- 
als have  taken,  has  exposed  them  to  the 
charge  of  inconsistency,  which  is  daily  vocif- 
erated from  the  mouth  of  every  bigot :  but 
it  is  better,  and  I  presume  they  esteem  it  so, 
to  be  deemed  inconsistent  with  ourselves, 
than  to  be  inconsistent  with  the  first  princi- 
ples of  the  Christian  religion.  With  pro- 
priety may  it  be  said  to  such  persons  "  If 
ye  are  reproached  for  the  name  of  Christ,  hap- 
py are  ye  ;  for  the  Spirit  of  glory  and  of  God 
resteth  upon  you.  On  their  part  he  is  evil  spo^ 
ken  oj,  hut  on  your  part  he  is  glorified.  But 
let  none  of  you  suffer  as  a  murderer,  or  as  a 
thief,  or  as  an  evil  doer,  or  as  a  busy-body 
in  other  men's  matters.*  Yet  if  any  man 
suffer  as  a  Christian,  let  him  not  be  ashamed  ; 
but  let  him  glorijy  God  on  this  behalf. — Ha- 
ving a  good  conscience ;  that,  nhtrcas  they 
speak  evil  of  you  as  evil  doers,  they  may  be 
ashamed  that  falsely  accuse  your  good  conver- 
sation in  Christ.  For  it  is  better,  if  the  will 
of  God  be  so,  that  ye  suffer  for  yell-doing  than 
for  evil  doings  1  Pet.  iv.  14—16.  iii.  16, 
17. — In  view  of  these  facts,  Lebbeus,  which 
think  you,  bids  the  fairest  lo  be  "  rapidly 
purged  out,"  infant  baptism  or  close  comnm- 


*  The  litcrr,;  translation  of  this  phrase  i^  "  ove  that  make;. 
himself  a  bishop  in  another  >r<a/j'.v  charge  »r  diocese"  endeavouring 
tt>  !e:>J  st-"*y  iiis  Hock,  8cc.  fee 


nion?  Upon  the  continuance  of  which,  would 
you  rather  have  your  life  suspended? 

One  inquiry  more,  and  1  have  done. — 
Which  are  the  churches  that,  by  your  sys- 
tem, are  excluded  from  1  lie  pale  of  Christ's 
visible  kingdom,  and  are  often  branded  as 
the  limbs  of  Popery  and  Antichrist?  They 
are  the  very  churches,  which,  as  in  every 
past  age,  are,  at  the  present  time,  doing  a 
hundred-fold  more  to  promote  the  cause  of 
Christianity,  than  all  their  revilers  have 
done. — Who  are  the  men  that  have  spent 
their  lives,  not  in  secular  pursuits  to  the 
starving  of  their  flocks,,  but  in  illustrating; 
and  defending  the  truth  of  the  bible  ;  and 
who,  "though  dead  yet  speak  I"  The  fruits 
of  their  labours  are  left  behind,  and  have  al- 
ready been  blessed  to  the  salvation  of  thou- 
sands; and  will  still  remain  a  rich  legacy 
for  generations  yet  unborn.  Remove  from 
our  shelves  all  the  books  which  have  been 
written  by  Paedobaptists,  and  how  many 
volumes  will  there  be  left  ?  A  few  pam- 
phlets on  immersion  and  close  communion 
will  then  constitute  the  whole  of  our  libra- 
ries.* lam  bold  to  affirm  that  "the  wri- 
tings of  one  individual  of  the  Psedobaptists — 
the  first  President  Edwards — are  of  tenfold 


*  These  remarks  are  made  with  special  reference  to  this  coun- 
try. There  are  many  honourable  exceptions  on  the  Other  side  oi 
the  Atlantic.  The  names  of  the  late  Dr.  Fulltii,  of  Fosteb  and 
Hall  would  do  honour  to  any  communion,  and  will  be  embalmed, 
in  the  hearts  of  posterity.  And  it  is  no  small  evidence  of  the 
real  greatness  of  these  men,  that  instead  of  spending*  their  lives 
in  contention   with  other  churches  about  modes   and  fortm 

2.1* 


more  worth,  thai)  all  the  writings  of  your 
denomination,  in  this  country,  from  its  first 
settlement  to  the  present  day."  And  are 
these  churches,  and  these  godly  ministers 
the  "  limbs  of  Popery  and  Antichrist  ;" 
or  is  the  sentiment  a  base  and  unfounded  ca- 
lumny ? 

But  I  forbear.  The  bigotry,  the  arro- 
gance, and  the  uncharitableness  of  your  sys- 
tem, sicken  my  very  soul.  I  would  sooner 
part  with  ray  right  hand  than  subscribe  to 
its  pretentions. 

Now,  Lebbeus,  you  see  the  broad  line  of 
demarkation  between  your  church  and  ours. 
You  plainly  perceive  that  there  can  be  no 
accommodation  between  the  two  systems. 
If  one  is  right,  the  other  must  be  wrong  : 
and  all  attempts  to  unite  them,  must  be  as 
unsuccessful  as  the  attempt  "to  weld  iron 
and  clay."  And  which  of  them  is  "  buili 
on  the  foundation  of  the  prophets  and  apos- 
tles, Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  cor- 
ner stone,"  I  now  cheerfully  submit  to  your 
decision. 

Leb.  I  candidly  acknowledge,  Eugenius, 
that  your  arguments  are  unanswerable  ;  and 
that  our  system  is  full  of  inconsistencies, 
which  must  render  it  abhorrent  to  every  pi- 
great  object  of  the  ir  labours  has  been  to  illustrate  the  doctrines 
and  enforce  the  duties  of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  One  of  them  in 
pa  ticular  has  openly  attacked  the  narrow  bigotry  of  his  own 
church,  and  boldly  extended  the  hand  of  Christian  fellowship  to 
other  denominations  :  Under  such  auspices,  and  with  such  an 
apostle  as  Carey,  the  cause  of  missions  may  well  be  expected  to. 
succeed. 


217 

oils  ami  candid  mind.  From  this  hour,  I 
shall  date  my  emancipation  from  its  bon- 
dage. I  am  now  convinced  that  the  mode  of 
baptism  can  be  of  little  consequence  com- 
pared with  the  subjects.  But  as  this  is  es- 
teemed a  point  of  essential  importance,  by 
the  advocates  of  immersion,  and  as  I  am  ve- 
ry little  acquainted  with  the  arguments  in 
support  of  your  practice,  I  shall  feel  myself 
under  additional  obligations,  if  you  will  fa- 
vour me  with  your  sentiments  on  that  sub- 
ject also. 

Eug.    This  I  shall  do  with  the    utmost 
cheerfulness. 


SECTION  IX. 

On  the  mode  of  Baptism,* 

Eugenius.  You  have  justly  remarked  that 
the  mode  of  baptism  is  of  little  consequence 

*  The  Baptists  scarcely  ever  attempt  to  treat  this  branch 
of  the  subject,  without  expressing  their  aversion  to  the  phrase 
"  made  of  baptism,''  because,  say  they,  it  seems  to  imply  that 
baptism  may  be  performed  more  ways  than  one;  "whereas  im- 
mersion is  baptism  itself— to  say  that  immersion  or  dipping-  is 
the  tnpde  of  br.ptisrn,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  say,  that  dipping-  is 
the  mode  of  dipping."  And  to  call  "sprinkling  a  mode  of  baptism 
is  just  such  good  sense  as  to  say  that  sprinkling  is  the  mode  of 
dipping,  since  baptism  and  dipping  are  the  same."  This  may 
piss  for  "logical reasoning;'*  with  Baptists;  but  a  child  may 
perceive  that  it  is  begging  the  question  at  the  outset.  The  very 
point  to  be  proved  i ;.  that  baptism  and  immersion  or  dipping  mean 
the  same  thing.  Bat  this  our  opponents  assume  at  the  threshold 
of  the  controversy,  and.  then  pretend  to  prove  it.  This  is  done 
by  asserting  it  over  and  over  again,  without  an  argument  to  sup- 
port i%.  until  their  hearers  or  readers,  mistaking  assertion  for  ar- 
gument,  verily  believe  the  point  is  established.  "  This  passes  fov 
currency  with  those  ivho  do  not  examine  for  themselves" 


248 

compared  with  the  other  point  of  controver- 
sy. For  if  the  constitution  of  the  church 
still  includes  the  infants  of  believers,  which 
has  been  proved,  then  those  churches  which 
have  adopted  that  constitution  must  be 
the  true  and  regular  gospel  churches.  Their 
constitution  being  right,  no  informality 
in  external  rites,  if  it  did  exisf,  could  des- 
troy their  church  state.  On  the  other  hand, 
any  formality  in  rites  and  ceremonies,  how- 
ever conformable  to  divine  institution,  can- 
not render  those  societies  regular  churches, 
which  rejectand  ridicule  the  constitution  that 
the  Lord  has  ordained.  In  making  these  re- 
marks, 1  would  not  be  understood  to  admit 
that  I  consider  our  mode  less  conformable 
to  divine  institution  than  our  opponents' ; 
but  to  enforce  the  idea  that  the  grand  point 
of  difference  between  the  two  systems  is  that 
which  has  been  discussed  :  and  consequent- 
ly that  the  Baptists,  in  attaching  so  much 
importance  to  the  mode,  as  to  reject  com- 
munion with  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands 
of  real  Christians,  merely  because  they  have 
never  been  completely  under  water,  is  in  fact 
"paying  tythes  of  mint,  arutis  and  cum  mm, 
and  omitting  the  weightier  mailers  of  the  law." 
Common  sense  decides  against  attaching 
so  much  consequence  to  external  rites,  and 
the  scriptures  give  it  no  countenance.  Some 
of  your  preachers  have  indeed  ridden  "the 
red  heifer"*  of  the  ceremonial  law,  till  she  is 

*  In  some  places  this  allusion  may  not  be  perfectly  intelligi- 
ble.   To  render  it  so,  I  need  only  observe,  that,  in  this  part  of 


219 

completely  worn  out  in  the  service ;  hut  they 
have  not  yet  proved  that  the  Lord  ever  at- 
tached so  much  importance,  even  under  the 
ceremonial  economy,  to  the  mode  of  perfor- 
ming a  religious  rite,  as  to  nullify  the  act  for 
want  of  exact  conformity  to  the  institution; 
especially  when  it  was  done  from  conviction 
of  duty,  and  with  sincere  and  upright  inten- 
tions, [n  such  a  case,  he  expresses  his  dis- 
approbation of  the  informality,  but  accepts 

the  country,  the  Baptists,  among-  other  flimsy  arguments  to  in- 
duce people  of  tender  consciences  to  be  immersed,  huve  urged 
the  necessity  of  conforming  exactly  to  divine  rule,  by  an  allusion 
to  the  red  heifer  which  Moses  was  commanded  to  take  for  the 
purification  of  the  people.  This  lias  been  a  favourite  subject  of 
declamation  with  some.  "  Although,"  say  they,  •■  this  was  a  mere 
ceremonial  observance,  yet  no  other  colour  than  red  would  an- 
swer. Therefore,  nothing-  but  immersion.'*  Here,  again,  it  is  evi- 
dent there  is  an  assumption  of  the  very  point  in  dispute.  We  believe 
that  no  other  colour  would  answer  in  that  case,  and  that  be- 
cause the  Lord  had  explicitly  declared  it.  But  it  is  not  so  with 
respect  to  baptism.  The  cases,  therefore,  are  not  parallel.  In 
order  to  make  them  so,  let  us  suppose  that  the  Lord,  without 
specifying  any  particular  colour,  had  commanded  Moses  to  take 
a  coloured  heifer,  &c.  would  the  Baptists  undertake  to  prove  that 
none  but  a  red  heifer  would  answer  ?  They  might  urge  in  sup 
port  of  that  idea  that  red  is  the  brightest  of  all  colours,  and  there-, 
fore  answers  most  fully  to  the  idea  of  a  coloured  heifer — that  it 
corresponds  with  the  colour  of  the  cedar-wood,  and  hyssop  and 
scarlet-wool,  &c.  and  after  adopting  this  notion,  they  might 
exclude  from  their  communion  all  who  would  not  subscribe  to 
the  same  opinion,  with  as  much  propriety  as  they  now  exclude 
those  who  do  not  believe  that  baptism  implies  immersion. — Or, 
let  them  first  prove  that  the  Lord  has  as  explicitly  (old  us,  that 
baptism  must  be  performed  by  immersion,  as  he  did  Moses  that 
the  heifer  must  be  red,  before  they  ur^c  the  latter  in  support  of 
the  former.  But  since  this  cannot  be  done,  and  since  the  Lord  h;  s 
commanded  his  people  to  be  baptized,  without  specifying- the 
quantity  of  water  to  be  used;  whether  three  drop*,  or  a  gaUoHt 
or  a  hoq-shead,  or  a  hike  ;  it  is  evident  that  there  is  no  more  ana- 
logy between  the  red  heifer  and  immersion,  than  there  is  between 
the  profession  of  a  Jeij  and  a  Baptist.  I  am  astonished  that  such 
mortal  enemies  to  the  ceremonial  law  should  ever  urge  any  of  its 
provisions  in  support  of  their  system. 


25a 

the  service  according  to  the  intention  of  the 
heart.  Thus,  at  the  passo&er  which  was  ce- 
lebrated by  Hezekiah,  "a  multitude  of  the 
people  had  not  cleansed  themselves,  vet  did 
they  eat  the  passover  otherwise  than  it  was 
written,  But  Hezekiah  prayed  for  them, 
saying,  The  good  Lord  pardon  every  one 
that  preparelh  his  heart  to  seek  God,  the 
Lord  God  of  Ins  fathers,  though  he  be  not 
cleansed  according  to  the  purification  of  the 
sanctuary,  And  the  Lord  hearkened  to  He- 
zekiah, and  healed  the  people."  2Chron.xxx0 
18 — =20.  Here  was  a  departure  from  ex- 
press precept,  which  was  understood  and 
acknowledged  by  the  king  and  people;  and 
yet  the  Lord  graciously  accepted  their  ser- 
vice, because  their  hearts  were  sincere. 

Lzb.  I  think  I  have  seen  this  fact  alluded 
to  before  for  the  same  purpose,  and  heard 
it  answered,  that  the  Lord  did  not  accept 
their  service  ;  and,  therefore,  they  kept  the 
feast  over  again,  verse  23.  "  And  the  whole 
assembly  took  counsel  to  keep  other  seven 
days;  and  they  kept  other  seven  days  with 
gladness." 

Eug.  The  people  were  so  delighted  with 
the  worship  of  God,  during  the  first  seven 
days  of  unleavened  bread,  that,  of  their  viva 
ehoice,  they  resolved  to  keep  the  feast  seven 
days  longer.  But  this  was  not  designed  as 
a  substitute  for  the  former,  nor  was  the  pass- 
over  repeated.  If  this  had  been  their  de- 
sign, instead  of  repairing  what  they  had 
done  amiss,  it  would  have  been  a  repetition 


251 

of  the  offence ;  for  they  were  no  more  pu- 
rified, according  to  the  law,  in  the  second 
week  than  in  the  first.  And  in  another  point 
of  view,  it  would  have  been  a  still  greater 
departure  from  divine  precept.     The  Lord 
had  commanded  them  to  keep  the  passover 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first  month. — 
But  if  any  were  not   purified  at  that  time, 
they  were  directed  to  keep  it  on  the  four- 
teenth day  of  the  second  month.     This  was 
the  very  time  in  which   Hezekiah  had  ap- 
pointed the   passover,  because   the  priests 
were  not  purified  in  the  first  month.    Vers. 
2,  3,  13,  1^>.  To  suppose,  therefore,  that  the 
people,  of  their  own  option,  kept  the  feast 
over  again  on  the  twenty -first  of  the  month, 
is  to  make  them  depart  still  further  from  di- 
vine institution.   But  the  fact  is  plain.    The 
Lord  graciously  accepted  them,  not  withtand- 
ing   the  informality  of  their  worship,  and 
gave  them  such  delight  in  his  service,  as  in- 
duced them  to  extend  the  feast  of  unleaven- 
ed  bread   seven  days   longer. — This    fact, 
therefore,  plainly  shews  that  if  the  Baptists 
were  as  exact  imitators  of  the  example  of 
Christ  as  they  profess  to  be,  they  would  be 
willing  to  extend  the  hand  of  Christian  com- 
munion, to  all  those  who  have  sincerely  dis- 
charged their  own  consciences  in  the  obser- 
vance of  a  religious   rite,  even  though,  in 
their  opinion,  they  may  have  departed  from 
the  prescribed  rule.* 

*  "  Bui,  say  the  Baptists,  in  refusing  to  commune  ivith  your 
churches,  ~ue  act  precisely  on  the  growid  you  do.     You  w««W  not 


552 

Forms  of  worship  or  religious  rites  are 
positive  institutions;  and  are,  therefore,  ob- 
ligatory no  further  than  they  are  explicitly 
revealed.  That  the  mode  of  baptism  is  so 
distinctly  revealed,  as  to  prove  that  immer- 
sion is  essential  to  its  due  performance,  we 
most  unequivocally  deny;  and  I  pledge 
myself  to  establish  t lie  position. — All  the  ar- 
guments that  your  denomination  use  in  fa- 
vour of  immersion  may  be  reduced  to  two 
general  heads,  viz. 

3.  The  import  of  the  original  word.  And 
.  2.  The   circumstances   attending  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  ordinance,  as  expressed 
in  the  sacred  record. 

admit  to  the  Lord's  table,  ove  -who  had  never  been  baptized :  in  ouv 
view,  you  are  vnbaptized persons  ;  and  therefore,  for  the  same  rea- 
so7is  iokich  you  would  alledge,  we  cannot  commune  -until  you"  This 
looks  very  plausible  at  first  view  ;  but  it  is  easy  to  see  that  there 
is  a  vast  difference  between  their  practice  and  ours.  We  should 
indeed  consider  it  improper  to  admit  to  our  communion,  a  per- 
son who  denies  and  refuses  to  submit  bo  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism in  any  mode  or  form.  But,  although  we  have  a  preference 
tor  a  particular  mode,  yet  we  do  not  attach  so  much  consequence 
to  the  mode,  as  to  refuse  any  who  have  discharged  their  own  con- 
sciences in  the  observance  of  this  rite,  whether  by  immersion, 
pouring-  or  sprinkling.  Here  then  lies  the  difference.  We  say, 
"  We  are  -willing  to  admit  to  our  communion,  all  the  children  of  God 
•who  liuve  discharged  their  consciences  inregard  to  4oater  baptism" 
The  Baptists  say,  "  We  will  admit  none  however  pious  and  consci- 
entious, until  they  have  complied  with  our  forms  ;  end  thus  dischar- 
ged OUR  consciences,  as  well  as  thtir  own"  Ir  this  is  not  "  lord- 
ing it  over  other  men's  consciences"  I  know  not  what  is 

But  demands  one,  **  Can  yon  fellowship  a  man  in  doing  what  you 
dare  not,  as  conscientious  Christian?,  do  yourselves  ?''  1  answer,  Yes, 
in  regard  to  modes  and  forma  not  explicitly  revealed  Especially, 
when  I  see  my  Lord  and  Master  overlooking,  what  I  consider  his 
irregularity,  and  blessing  him  with  the  tokens  of  his  favour,  I 
feel  it  to  be  my  imperious  duty,  to  "  fellowship"  him  as  one  of 
God's  children. 

"  O  /  says  the  Baptist  r.gain,  we  go  as  far  as  Christ  doe1? : — he 
Communes  with  you  sriniTTALLT,  and  so  do  we  !  /"  And  pray,  does 


2jS 

In  regard  to  the  first,  the  Baptists  assert, 
that  the  Greek  word  "baptizo"  always  im- 
plies immersion :  and  in  attestation  of  this, 
they  refer  to  "  lexicographers,"  and  "  com- 
mon sense,"  and  "fathers,"  and  "reformers," 
and  "  historians,"  and  "  learned  authors," 
and  "  quakers  ;''  the  most  of  whose  writings, 
many  of  them  have  never  read  in  all  their 
lives.  But,  although  this  may  serve  to  make 
the  vulgar  think  that  those  who  can  make 
such  abundant  references,  must  themselves 
be  very  "learned  authors;"  yet  what  is  this 
to  the  point  in  hand?  Why  is  reference 
made  at  all,  to  this  motley  mixture  of  wor- 
thies and  unworthies  ?  The  opinion  of  one 
man  is  no  better  than  that  of  another,  in  a 
controversy  that  is  to  be  decided  by  the  word 
of  God.     The  question  is,  What  is  the  im- 

Christ  commune  with  Christian  Baptists  in  any  other  way  ?  DM 
he  ever  appear  bodily,  at  one  of  their  communion  tables  ?  This  w* 
have  never  heard  asserted ;  though  the  impious  attempt  was 
made,  a  few  years  ago,  in  a  neighbouring*  state,  to  persuade  the 
world  that  the  Holy  Ghost  appeared  in  the  shape  of  a  dove,  in  * 
Eaptist  church,  and  perched  on  the  head  of  the  minister,  who 
was  declaiming  on  immersion  :  but  the  "  cheat  tvas  soon  detected" 
and  held  up  to  merited  contempt. 

Again,  the  advocate  of  close  communion  observes,  "  We  admit 
that  Christ  communes  with  you,  in  the  same  manner  that  he  does 
-with  us  ?  but  not  on  brkad  A5D  wiNE."  Is  it  fact  then,  that 
Christ  communes  with  Christian  Fiedo  baptists,  in  all  their  reli- 
gious services,  until  they  approach  the  communion  table  ;  and 
then,  covers  his  face  with  a  cloud,  which  not  a  ray  of  light  di- 
vine can  penetrate  ?  Instead  of  his  banner  of  love,  does  he  spread 
clouds  of  vengeance  over  their  heads?  If  the  testimony  of  V?  - 
dobaptists  may  not  be  received  in  this  case,  I  call  upon  those  few 
charitable  Baptists,  who  have  broken  over  the  unchristian  bar- 
riers of  their  own  church  and  taken  an  occasional  seat  at  our  ta- 
ble, to  answer  these  questions.  Say,  brethren  ;  did  not  Jesus 
manifest  himself  there  "  in  the  breaking  of  bread?"  Did  not  your 
*'  hearts  bum  within  you,"  white  you  received  the  sacred  svmbols 
22-  • 


254 

port  of  the  word  "  baptizo"  as  it  is  used  in 
the  scriptures  ?  Does  it  there  always  signify 
immersion?  If  so,  then  we  yield  the  point. 
I3ut  if  there  is  a  single  exception,  our  oppo- 
nents are  down.  "  To  Ihe  law  and  the  tes- 
timony," therefore,  we  make  the  appeal. 

Permit  me  then  to  refer  you  to  Mark  vii. 
4.  where  it  is  said  of  the  Pharisees,  "When 
they  come  from  the  market  except  they 
wash  (in  the  original  it  is  "  baptize,")  they 
eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there  be 
which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the 
washing  (baptizing)  of  cups  and  pots  and 
brazen  vessels  and  of  tables." 

Leb.  But  "this  does  not  refer  to  the  or- 
dinance of  baptism." 

of  his  body  and  blood,  from  the  handsof  a  "sprinkled  priest,"  in  the 
midst  of  a  "  sprinkled  throng  ?"  Were  you  not  ready  to  exclaim, 
■■*  Surely  Jesus  is  in  tins  place,  though  Ikneiv  it  not  before  ?"  These 
questions  I  cheerfully  submit  to  your  decision  ;  but  to  propose 
them  to  your  close  communion  brethren,  would  be  to  submit  a 
question  concerning-  colours  to  the  blind. 

To  cap  the  climax  of  absurdity,  another  says,  "  Christ  is  a  Sove- 
reign and  can  do  as  he  pleases  j  but  xoe  can  go  no  further  than  he  has 
commanded  !  !  /"  And  can  Christ,  because  he  is  a  Sovereign,  do 
morally  ivrong  ?  This  must  be  the  meaning  of  the  objection,  if 
it  is  morally  wrong  for  Baptists  to  commune  with  Paedobaptists. 
— But,  Christ  has  commanded  his  people  to  follow  his  example  : 
and  if  he  sets  the  example  of  communing  with  Paedobaptists, 
how  can  Baptists  dispense  with  the  command. 

Driven  from  every  other  refuge,  I  hear  a  thousand  whispers,  at 
once,  "  If  we  give  up  close  communion,  our  church  is  down." — "Aye, 
f.here's  the  rub."  This  is  undoubtedly  correct ;  and  this  is  the 
grand  secret  of  close  communion.  For  the  sake  of  maintaining 
a  system  and  promoting  a  party,  nine  tenths  of  Christ's  sheep  are 
to  "be  turned  out  into  the  wilderness,  and  treated  like  wolves  : 
though  he  continues  to  foster  them  -with  a  shepherd's  care.  Here,  then, 
stands  the  hideous  monster,  in  his  native  deformity,  divested  of  his 
CLO  \K  of  "  zeal  for  Divine  institutions."  Who,  that  possesses  the 
head  of  a  wise  man,  or  the  heart  of  a  Christian,  will  give  hi** 
' '  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  ?" 


25£ 

Eug.  And  that  is  the  very  reason  why  I 
refer  to  it.  It  is  the  same  word  in  the  ori- 
ginal, that  is  applied  to  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism ;  and  therefore,  serves  to  explain  its 
meaning.  And  as  it  does  not  signify  immer- 
sion here,  it  is  evident  that  it  does  not  al- 
ways imply  that  idea. 

Ijcb.  I  have  often  heard  it  said,  that  the 
immersion  in  the  former  part  of  this  verse, 
relates  to  the  hands,  and  not  to  the  whole 
body  ;  because  the  Evangelist  says,  in  the 
verse  immediately  preceding,  "  Except  they 
wash  their  hands  oft,  they  eat  not."  Ver.  3. 

Eug,  Admit  that,  and  your  difficulty  is 
increased  ;  for  in  the  preceding  verse,  where 
the  Evangelist  says,  "Except  they  wash  their 
hands  oft,''  he  does  not  use  the  word  "bap- 
tizo"  but  "  nipto"  which  properly  signifies 
to  wash  one  hand  with  the  other  ;  and  which,  in 
this  case,  is  evidently  used  as  synonymous 
with  "  baptizo"  Except  they  wash  (nipson- 
taij  their  hands  oft,  they  eat  not.  And  when 
they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash 
(baptisonlai)  they  eat  not."  The  first  is  a 
general  declaration  of  their  frequent  wash- 
ingSy  and  the  second  is  given  as  one  example, 
Who  then  that  has  any  regard  to  truth,  or 
title  to  "  common  sense,"  will  say,  that  these 
words  are  used  in  a  different  sense  ?  and  if 
they  are,  which,  from  its  connexion,  seems 
most  likely  to  imply  immersion  ?  The  bal- 
ance is  manifestly  in  favour  of  "  nipto'?9 
and  yet  no  man  pretends  that  this  implies 
that  idea. 

Again,  observe  the  recurrence  of  the  word 


256 

u  baptize?*  at  the  close  of  this  verse,  and  al- 
so in  the  8th  verse.  "  The  baptising  of  cups, 
pots,  brazen  vessels  and  tables,"  or  rather 
couches  or  beds  ;  for  so  the  word  properly 
signifies,  and  thus  it  is  invariably  rendered, 
except  in  this  case.  See  Mat.  ix.  6.  Mar.  iv. 
21.  Luke  v.  19,24.  viii.  16.  xvii.  34.  Acts  v. 
15.  Rev.  ii.  22. 

Leb.  But  it  has  been  said,  "  If  the  washing 
of  hands,  cups,  platters,  &c.  was  for  the  pur- 
pose of  cleanliness,  this  passage  concludes 
in  our  favour;  for  this  is  generally  done 
by  wetting  all  the  parts  thus  washed." 

Eug.  The  man  that  makes  this  supposition 
does  not  believe  that  those  washings  were 
"  for  the  purpose  of  cleanliness."  Our  Sa- 
viour or  his  apostles  never  blamed  any  man 
for  washing  his  hands,  or  any  thing  else, 
when  they  were  defiled.  I  presume  they 
were  as  cleanly  in  their  persons  and  table- 
furniture,  as  the  Pharisees.  The  baptisms 
here  spoken  of,  were  washings  enjoined  by 
the  traditions  of  the  elders ;  not  for  the  pur- 
pose ofcleanliness,  but  as  an  appendage  to 
the  ceremonial  purifications,  in  token  of 
their  superior  righteousness.  But  if  "  learn- 
ed writers  have  clearly  shewn,"  what,  by 
the  way,  the  bible  does  not,  but  directly  the 
contrary,  (Exo.  xxx.  Lev.  viii.  Num.  xix.) 
"  that  ceremonial  washings  were  performed 

by    PUTTING    ALL    OVER  UNDER  WATER;"    Can 

any  learned  or  unlearned  man  tell  how  they 
baptised  their  couches  or  beds?  Will 
"  common  sense,"  which  Mr.  Booth  consid- 
ers incomparably  better  than  learned  men, 


237 

decide  in  favour  of  immersion  11 — Is  It  not; 
perfectly  ridiculous  to  see  the  Baptists  re- 
ferring to  the  authority  of  learned  men,  when 
their  testimony  seems  to  favour  their  pecu- 
liarities, and  at  other  times  treating  them 
with  contempt  and  disdain  ? 

Here  then  is  a  case,  in  which  the  words 
"  baptizo"  and  "n*/?/o"  are  evidently  used 
synonymously  ;  and  yet  neither  of  them 
signifies  immersion.  If  this  import  could  bo 
attached  to  either,  the  latter  has  manifestly 
the  strongest  claim.  Now  if  there  were  no 
other  similar  example  in  the  word  of  God, 
this  would  be  sufficient  to  shew,  that  the  ar- 
gument founded  on  the  meaning  of 'the  word 
"baptisa"  is  inconclusive. — But  there  are 
other  examples.  The  same  remarks  apply 
to  Luke  xL3o.  where  it  is  said  "  the  Phar- 
isee marvelled  that  he-  (Jesus)  had  not  first 
washed  (baptized)  before  dinner,"  Will 
any  man  in  his  senses  believe  that  the  Jews 
never  ate  a  meal  without  previously  immers- 
ing themselves  ?  So/ne  Baptists  have  indeed 
asserted  this ;  and  for  the  convenience  o£ 
the  operation,  tbey  have,  ai  their  own  expenee, 
furnished  every  house  in  Jerusalem,  with  a 
private  bath,  sufficiently  targe  for  the  im- 
mersion of  the  inhabitants  and  all  the  furni- 
ture of  the  house  !  But  all  this  is  assertion 
without  a  shadow  of  evidence,- — That  each 
house  was  furnished  with  vessels  for  their 
ceremonial  purification  is  indeed  evident  ; 
but  that  these  were  large  enough  for  the  im- 
mersion of  the  hod yT  does  not  appear,  On 
the  contrary,  their  capacity*  in  the  only  ifcr 
22* 


2:38 

stance  in  which  it  is  mentioned, is  declared 
to  be  "two  or  three  firkins  apiece*;"  and 
they  were  furnished  with  means  for  drawing 
out  the  water  for  use.  See  John  ii.  6 — 8, 
Hence,  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  im- 
merse their  bodies  or  large  pieces  of  furni- 
ture in  such  vessels.  And  I  will  add,  that  if 
they  had  cleansed,  even  their  cups  and  plat- 
ters  in  that  way,  there  would  have  been 
no  foundation  for  our  Saviour  to  accuse 
them  of  cleansing  merely  the  outside  of  these 
vessels :  for  in  immersing  them,  they  could 
have  made  no  distinction  between  the  in- 
side and  the  outside.  Both  would  have  been 
equally  clean. 

I  will  now  refer  you  to  an  example  that 
not  only  decides  against  immersion,  but  di- 
rectly in  favour  of  sprinkling.  In  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  the  apostle,  in  referring 
to  the  ceremonial  economy,  makes  mention 
of"  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  wetshingsJ* 
(Gr,  baptisms.)  Heb.  ix.  10.  But  how  were 
these  divers  baptisms  performed?  Of  this 
the  apostle  proceeds  to  give  an  example, 
"For  if  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and 
the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean, 
sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  &c." 
Comp.  Num.  xix.  and  Heb.  ix.  Here,  then, 
it  seems  that  oney  at  least,  of  those  divers 
baptisms  was  performed  by  sprinkling. — 
Where  then  is  the  assertion  that  the  word 
always  implies  "  all  over  under  water  ?" 

*  The  word  rendered  Jlrkin,  was  a  measure  containing  a  littler 
r*ss  than  eve  gallon. 


259 

Again,   St.  Paul  declares  fbft't  all  the  Is- 
raelites "were  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the* 
cloud  and  in  the  sea."    1  Cor.  x.  2.     I  aru 
aware  that  the  Baptists,  in  order  to  get  rid 
of  this  text,  have  spread  the  cloud  on  the 
surface  of  the  sea,  or  made  it  a   complete* 
canopy  over  their  heads,  necessarily  touch- 
ing the  surface  of  the   sea  on   each  side, 
and  the  bottom  of  the  sea,  before  and  behind 
them,  it  is  true,  the  scripture  saith  "the  pillar 
of  the  cloud  went   from  before    their  face 
and  stood  behind  them  :"    and  I  am  willing 
to  admit  that,  in  its  transition,  it  might  have 
passed  over  their  heads;    but  this  change 
took  place  before  they  entered  the  sea  ;  and, 
no  intimation  is  given  that  they  were,  at  any 
time,  enveloped  in  the  maimer  supposed. — 
But  even   admitting  that  this  was  the  case, 
it  must  be  a  very  strange  and  unprecedent- 
ed kind  of  baptism,  in  which,  not  a  particle^ 
of  the  element  is  permitted  to  touch  the  bo- 
dy.    I  have  been  in  the  habit  of  supposing, 
that  in  order  to  a  right  performance  of  bap- 
tism, water,  in  seme  measure  or  olher,  must 
be  applied  to  the  person.     But,  according 
to  this  conjecture,  Baptists  might  easily  con- 
trive a  method  to  immerse  their  proselytes, 
without  ever  permitting  a  drop  of  water  to 
touch  the  body.     This  would  be  vastly  con- 
venient, especially    in   the   winter   season, 
and  at  all  times  for  sick  people.*     But  ai- 

*  This  happy  fancy  is  still  further  countenanced  by  Dr.  Gill?s 
remarks  on  1  Pet.  in.  20,  21.    He  there  insists  that  the  apostle> 


260 

though  a  person  might  in  this  manner,  he 
truly  immersed,  yet  he  could  not  he  consid- 
ered truly  baptized:  nor  do  I  beiieve  that 
the  Israelites  were  thus  baptized ;  but  that 
they  were  sprinkledhy  the  spray  of  the  sea, 
and  a  shower  of  rain  from  clouds  passing 
over  them. 

Leb.  But  one  of  our  writers  says  this  b 
"a  very  vain  fancy,  because  it  is  said  they 
went  over  6vy  shod," 

Eug.  Then  it  seems  one  of  your  writers 
believes  that  they  were  baptized,   without 

in  calling"  Noah's  salvation  by  toater  a  TiJ-e  figure  to  our ■  salvation 
by  baptism,  alludes  to  the  mode  of  baptism  ;  therefore,  he  feel*' 
constrained  to  contrive  a  way  to  Kave  Noah  and  his  family  im- 
mersed. Rut  how  is  this  accomplished  ? — Why  simply  thus,  first » 
n  shutting  them  up  m  the  ark  r"  and  then,  (S  when  the  fountain?, 
of  the  great  deep  were  broken  up  below,  and  the  windows  of 
heaven  were  opened  above,  the  ark  with  those  in  it,  wrre,  as  it 
■were,  covered  with  and  imme<rs$d\ft  water  ;  arid  so  was  a  figure  of 
baptism  by  immersion."  Now  does  not  this  look  like  "heading- 
a  man  up  in  a  dry  eask  and  plunging  it  under  water,  and  then  li- 
king him  out  as  one  truly  immersed  ?"  No  !  it  is  not  half  so  ortho- 
dox a  method  as  this  ;  for  the  ark  was  only  sprinkled  or  poured 
upon,  but  the  cask  has  been  "ail  over  under  water." — But  Dr. 
Gill,  not  contented  with  attempting-  to  prove  the  madeof  baptism 
from  the  case  of  Noah,  undertakes  to  shew  from  the  same,  who 
are  the  proper  subjects.  The  whole  argument  is  contained  in- 
two  lines.  "  As  there  were  none  but  adult  persons  in  the  ark, 
who  were  saved  by  water  in  it,  so  none  but  adult  persons  are  the 
proper  subjects  of  water  baptism  !"  Reader,  is  this  logic  ?  If  so, 
*hen  because  ail  the  beasts  »f  the  fie'O  and  the  fowls  of  the  air 
and  creeping1  things  were  baptized,  according'  to  Dr.  Gill's  doc~ 
trine,  with  Noah  in  the  ark ;  therefore,  though  infants  are  exclu- 
ded, the  beasts  and  fowls  and  all  creeping  things  (except  creep- 
ing children^  are  proper  subjects  of  Christian  baptism. 

But,  to  be  serious,  1  think  it  must  be  evident  to  the  most  su- 
perficial reader,  that  St.  Peter,  in  mentioning  the  case  of  No»h,. 
does  not  give  the  least  intimation  of  his  being-  baptized  in  any 
mode  whatever.  He  merely  says,  "eight  souls  were  saved  by 
water,  the  like  figure  whereuuto,  even  baptism,  doth  also  now 
save  us,  (not  the  putting  av/ny  of  the  filth  of  the  fiesh,  but  the  an- 
swer-of  a  good  conscience  towards  God,)  by  the  resurrection  of^ 
•Jesus  Chrisit,"     As  Noah  a»d  feis  family  were  saved  by  water,  the 


261 

having  a  particle  of  water  come  in  contact 
with  them.  And  a  very  cogent  reason  he 
assigns  for  that  belief:  "  because  they  went 
over  dry-shod."  But,  did  a  man  never  walk 
dry-shod  through  a  shower  of  rain  ? — If  such 
reasoning  is  not  trijiing,  I  know  not  what  is. 
But  the  interpretation  which  I  have  adopt- 
ed, is  not  so  "  vain  a  fancy"  as  your  author 
supposes;  for  there  is  a  "Thus  saith  the 
Lord"  for  it.  "Thou  hast  with  thine  arm 
redeemed  thy  people,  the  sons  of  Jacob  and 
Joseph.  The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God;  the 
waters  saw  thee,  they  were  afraid,  the  deptha 
also  were  troubled.  The  clouds  poured  out 
water"    Psal.   lxxvii.   15 — 17.      Now,   sir, 

water  of  the  same  flood,  that  swept  an  ungodly  world  to  hell  ;  so 
baptismal  water,  which  is  (not  the  antitype  of  Noah's  salvation, 
but)  a  figure  or  representation  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  saves  the 
true  believer,  while  at  the  same  time  it  proves  the  aggravated 
condemnation  of  those  who  reject  him. — And  if  baptism  is  "  not 
the  putting  away  of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,"  why  be  washed  all  over  ? 
Immersion  does  nothing  more  toward  purifying  the  soul  than 
sprinkling.  "  And  he  that  is  washed,"  in  token  of  an  interna! 
grace, *•  necdeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit." 
And  if  baptism  i9  "  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience  toward  God," 
why  should  not  those,  who  have  discharged  their  consciences  by 
sprinkling,  us  much  as  those  who  have  been  immersed*  be  regarded 
as  truly  baptized,  and  as  regular  arid  conscientious  Christians  ? — 
But,  although  I  do  not  consider  the  apostle  as  referring,  in  this' 
case,  either  to  the  mode  or  subjects  of  baptism,  yet  there  is  one 
circumstance  in  the  case,  of  God's  covenant  with  Noah  which  is 
entitled  to  consideration.  We  have  no  evidence  from  the  scrip- 
tures, that  any  of  Noah's  family  besides  himself,  was  a  true  believ- 
er, before  the  flood.  On  the  contrary,  we  have  so  much  evidence  us 
this,  that  at  least  one  of  his  sons  was  dissolute,  and  incurred  the 
curse  of  his  father,  which  followed  his  posterity  :  and  when  God 
resolved  to  save  some  of  the  human  family,  he  entered  into  cov- 
enant with  Noal)  only  g  ("With  thee  will  I  establish  my  covenant;" 
Gen.  vi.  13  )  yet  on  his  account,  he  graciously  condescends  to  save 
his  whole  family.  Header,  do  you  not  discover  something  here, 
like  a  connexion  betwten  the  faith  ef  a  believer  and  the  welfare, 
of  his  household 


262 

with  the  word  of  God  on  my  side,  I  submit 
to  "  common  sense"  to  determine,  which 
ought  to  be  called  "  a  vain  fancy  ;"  their 
being  sprinkled  in  a  shower,  or  immersed  in 
a  vacmim — a  pit  without  water. 

Again,  in  all  those  texts  in  which  baptism 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  is  spoken  of,  the  idea 
of  immersion  is  necessarily  excluded.  John 
declared  to  the  people  that  Christ  should 
"  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  This  Christ 
promised  to  his  disciples  ;  and  in  due  time 
it  was  accomplished.  This  was  done,  not 
by  immersing  them  into  the  Holy  Ghost, 
but  by  pouring  out  the  influence  of  the  Spir- 
it upon  them,  ft  is  thus  that  this  act  is  uni- 
formly represented  in  the  word  of  God. 
"  He  shall  come  down  like  rain  upon  the 
mown  grass,  and  showers  that  water  the 
earth."  "  T  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon 
you,"  said  the  Lord,  by  his  ancient  pro- 
phets. Pro?,  i.  23.  Isa.  xxxii.  J  5.  xliv.  3.  Ezek. 
xxxix.  29.  Joel  ii.  28,  39.  On  the  day  of 
pentecost  St.  Peter  declares  that  this  pro- 
phecy of  Joel  was  accomplished  in  the  e- 
vent  of  that  day.  And  how?  \ei  the  inspired 
record  say.  "  And  there  appeared  unto  them 
cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  up- 
on each  of  their),  and  they  were  all  filled 
with  (not  immersed  m)  the  Holy  Ghost." 
Arts  ii.  3,  4.* 

*  It  is  well  known,  that  the  Baptists  endeavour  to  deduce  the 
idea  of  hnmerrio-n,  from  the  record  of  this  transaction.  The  fol- 
lowiftg  quotation  from  Mr.  Booth,  will  serve  as  a  specimen  of 
their  reasoning  (if  it  may  be  so  ckiled)  upon  that  fact  :  and 
the  subjoined  answer  of  Mr. Edwards,  places  the  Baptist  exposi- 
tion of  thr.t  passage  in  its  true  light. 


263 

Again,  when  Peter  preached  the  gospel 
in  the  house  of  Cornelius,  "  The  Holy  Ghost 
fell  on  all  them  which  heard  the  word.  And 
they  which  were  of  the  circumcision  wrere 
astonished,  because  that  on  the  Gentiles  was 
poured  out  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  And 
then  Peter  inquired,  "  Can  any  forbid  water 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  which 
have  received  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  well  as  we." 
Acts  x.  44 — 47.  In  all  these  passages,  and 
a  multitude  of  others  of  the  same  descrip- 
tion, we  read  of  being  "filled  with  /'  "fall- 
ing" or  descending  :"  "poured  out"  and  "  re- 
ceived;" in  application  to  the  influences  of 
the  Spirit :  but  nothing  like  immersion. — 
The  very  idea  would  be  an  absurdity  in  that 
case. 

Once  more ;  our  Saviour  applies  the  word 
baptism  to  his  sufferings.  "  I  have  a  baptism 

After  speaking  of  "an  electrical  bath,  so  called,  because  the 
electric  fluid  surrounds  the  patient,"  Mr.  B.  proceeds  to  observe  : 
"  This  philosophical  document  reminds  me  of  the  sacred  histori- 
an's language,  where  narrating  the  fact  under  consideration,  thus 
he  speaks.  'And  when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come,  they 
were  all,  with  one  accord,  in  one  place.  And  suddenly  there 
came  a  sound  from  heaven,  as  of  a  rushing,  mighty  wind,  and  it 
filled  all  the  house  whebe  they  WERE  sitttng.  And  there  ap- 
peared unto  them  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire :  and  it  sat  upon 
each  of  them.  And  they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Now, 
s>aysMr.  B.  if  the  language  of  medical  electricity  be  just,  it  cannot 
be  absurd ;  nay,  it  seems  highly  rational,  to  understand  this  lan- 
guage of  inspiration  as  expressive  of  that  idea,  [immersion]  for 
which  we  contend.  Was  the  Holy  Spirit  poured  out?  Did  the  Holy 
Spirit  fall  upon  the  apostles  and  others  at  that  memorable  time  ? 
It  was,  in  such  a  manner,  and  to  such  a  degree,  that  they  were 
like  a  patient  in  the  electric  bath,  as  if  immersed  in  it." 

To  this  Mr.  E.  replies,  "  This  electric  bath  is  a  pretty  fancy, 
a  happy  invention  for  Mr.  B.  It  is  well  he  did  not  live  before  it 
was  found  out;  for  then  what  a  fine  thought  would  have  been 
lost.    Though  the  .Holy  Spirit  fell  vpon,  was  poured  out,  yet, 


2ti4 

to  be  baptized  with,  &c."  Luke  xii.  50. "  Are 
ye  able — to  be  baptized  with  the  baptism 
that  I  am  baptized  with  ?  &c."  Mark  x.  38, 
39.  Here  the  idea  of  immersion  is  as  absurd 
as  in  the  cases  last  mentioned.  The  blessed 
Jesus  was  filled,  both  soul  and  body,  with 
unutterable  pain  and  anguish  ;  but  to  say  he 
was  immersed  in  suffering,  is  a  perfect  absur- 
dity. We  sometimes  say  a  man  is  overwhelm- 
ed in  sorrow,  to  express  the  idea  of  extreme 
agony  ;  and  thus  the  passion  of  Christ  is  pro- 
phetically described  in  the  69th  Psalm;  but 
we  never  affix  to  this  expression,  the  idea 
of  his  sufferings  forming  an  element  around 

says  he,  it  was  in  such  a  manner,  and  to  such  a  degree,  that  they 
were  like  a  patient  in  the  electric  bath,  as  if  immersed  in  it ; 
that  is,  immersed  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  Most  persons,  1  suppose, 
when  they  read  of  the  Holy  Spirit  falling  upon  any  one,  under- 
stand it  to  mean,  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  coming*  upon  the  soul : 
but  Mr.  B.  speaks  as  if  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  his  influence,  fell  on 
the  outside  of  the  apostles,  and  so  surrounded  their  bodies  like 
an  electric  bath.  And,  to  shew  he  intended  this,  he  has  put  these 
words  in  large  capitals,  "  it  filled  all  tiie  house  where  thet 
we're  sitting."  Then  they  were  immersed  in  something  which 
filled  the  house ;  I  ask,  what  was  that  something  ? — I  answer,  [it 
was]  "  sound."  The  sound,  which  was  as  a  rushing,  mighty  wind, 
filled  all  the  house  where  they  were  sitting.  The  word,  in  the 
Greek,  is  echos,  an  echo,  a  reverberating  sound.  Mr.  B's  elec- 
tric bath  was,  after  all,  nothing  more  than  an  echo.  It  was  an 
echo,  then,  that  filled  the  house,  and  the  apostles  being  immersed 
in  sound,  were  surrounded  by  the  echo,  like  a  patient  in  an  elec- 
tric bath.  This  is  the  beauty  of  sticking  close  to  the  primary 
meaning  of  the  term,  as  Mr.  B.  calls  it;  and  so  tenacious  is  he  of 
his  primary  meaning,  that  he  does  not  care  in  what  people  are 
immersed,  so  they  are  but  immersed  in  something'* 

This  is  sufficient  to  shew  the  ridiculous  absurdity  of  the  idea 
of  immersion  in  the  "baptism  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  I  will 
add,  that  the  apostles  were  to  be  baptized,  not  only  with  the  Ho- 
ly Ghost,  but,  also,  -with  fire.  But  were  they  immersed  into  fire  " 
If  so,  then  they  were  immersed  into  the  cloven  tongues,  which, 
*•  like  as  of  fire,  sat  upon  each  of  them."  In  order,  therefore,  for 
the  Baptists  to  maintain  the  idea  of  immersion,  they  must  shew 
that  the  apostles  were  immersed  in  something  more  than  sound. 


265 

him,  in  which  he  is  immersed.  Our  blessed 
Saviour's  sorrows  overflowed,  and  in  conse- 
quence thereof,  he  was  baptized  with  "great 
drops  of  blood;"  but  here  was  nothing  like 
immersion. 

In  all  these  instances  which  I  have  men- 
tioned, the  word  "  baptism"  does  not  signi- 
fy immersion.  Such,  then,  is  the  amount 
of  the  main  argument  in  favour  of  the  Bap- 
tist mode. 

Leb.  But  is  not  immersion  evidently  im- 
plied in  the  expression  "  Buried  with  him 
in  baptism  V\ 

Eug.  No  sir;  there  is  no  allusion  what- 
ever to  the  mode  of  baptism  in  that  expres- 
sion, as  is  evident  from  the  connexion ;  but 
to  that  of  which  baptism  is  the  sign,  viz. 
death  to  sin.  This  phraseology  is  used  by  St. 
Paul  in  two  of  his  epistles,  Rom.  vi.  4.  and 
Col.  ii.  12.  and  in  both  cases  for  the  same 
purpose;  viz.  as  an  argument  to  induce 
Christians  to  live  a  life  of  holiness.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Baptist  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage, baptism  is  a  sign  of  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ:  but  no  such 
thing  is  even  intimated  by  the  apostle.  On 
the  contrary,  he  plainly  asserts  that  baptism 
is  simply  a  sign  of  death  to  sin.  "  Know  ye 
not  that  as  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ  were  baptized  into  his  death" 
Rom.  vi.  3.  Here  the  act  of  baptism  termi- 
nates, because  it  simply  signifies  "  death  to 
sin."  The  "  resurrection  to  newness  of  life" 
is  to  follow  as  a  consequence  of  being  dead 
23 


266 

to  sin.  This  is  plainly  expressed  in  the  6th 
verse.  "Knowing  this  that  our  old  man  is 
crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin 
might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we 
should  not  serve  sin"  Here  the  same  body 
which  is  "  buried  in  baptism"  is  said  to  be 
**  crucified"  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  life 
of  holiness.  And  this  is  the  very  point  of 
the  apostle's  argument  when  he  speaks  of 
baptism.  He  urges  Christians  to  live  a  life 
of  holiness,  from  a  consideration  of  the  pro- 
fession of  "  death  to  sin,"  which  they  had 
made  in  baptism.  "  Therefore  rue  are  buried 
with  him  by  baptism  into  death — "  (Here,  ob- 
serve again,  the  act  of  baptism  terminates; 
the  resurrection,  of  which  he  afterwards 
speaks,  is  evidently  something  that  is  subse- 
quent to  it — )  "that  like  as  Christ  ivas  rais- 
ed up  from  the  dead,  by  the  glory  of  the  Fa- 
ther, even  so  rue  also  should  walk  in  newness 
of  life"  This  distinction  between  death  and 
resurrection,  and  the  latter  as  being  subse- 
quent to  baptism,  is  still  more  strikingly  ex- 
pressed in  the  succeeding  verse.  "  For  if 
we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  like- 
ness of  his  resurrection."  That  is,  if  we  are 
indeed  dead  to  sin,  as  we  professed  to  be  in 
baptism,  "  we  shall  be"  (he  does  not  say  we 
were  raised  up  out  of  the  water  in  token  of 
Christ's  resurrection,  but)  "  we  shall  be  also 
in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection."  In  eve- 
ry one  of  these  verses  there  is  a  manifest 
distinction  between  death  and  resurrection ; 


> 


267 

the  former  being  implied  in  baptism,  and 
the  latter  resulting  from  that  change  of 
which  baptism  is  the  sign.  Hence  the  plain 
meaning  of  the  passage  is,  as  if  the  apostle 
had  said,  "  You  profess  to  be  dead  to  sin— 
this  was  evidently  implied  in  your  bap- 
tism :  for  as  Christ  was  put  to  death  for  sin, 
so,  in  the  reception  of  that  Christian  rite,  you 
professed  to  be  dead  to  sin  :  your  body  of 
sin,  not  your  natural  bodies,  was  buried  in 
baptism  :  therefore,  if  you  would  act  consist- 
ently with  the  profession  you  then  made, 
you  must  hereafter  walk  in  newness  of  life-.* 
But  the  Baptist  interpretation  of  this  pas- 
sage, by  uniting  death  and  resurrection  in 
the  act  of  baptism,  destroys  the  whole  force 
of  the  apostle's  reasoning,  and  makes  im- 
mersion "all  in  all  ;"  the  whole  sum  of  the 
Christian  profession  and  practice. 

Leb.  I  have  but  one  more  remark  to  make 
on  this  particular.  It  has  been  said  by  those 
who  have  "carefully  consulted  linguists"  on 
the  subject,  that  "  the  Greek  language  is  as 
rich  with  words  to  express  the  slightest  vari- 
ation of  ideas  as  any  language  whatever, — 
that  a  total  or  partial  washing,  pouring,  bath- 

*  Some  might  be  ready  to  suppose  that  the  parallel  text  Col. 
ii.  12.  seems  to  unite  death  and  resurrection  in  the  act  of  baptism. 
"  Buried  with  him  in  baptism  -wherein  also  ye  are  risen  with  him, 
&c."  But  it  is  sufficient  to  observe  that  the  relative  pronoun 
rendered  " wherein"  evidently  refers  to  Christ,  and  not  to  bap- 
tism ;  and  therefore  ought  to  have  been  rendered  "  in  whom." 
This  not  only  comports  best  with  the  context,  but  shews  that 
the  word  "  him,  which,  is  supplied  by  the  translators,  was  need- 
less. The  passage  will  then  read  thus  ;  "  Buried  with  him  in  bap- 
tism,  in  wliom  also  ye  are  raised  (  or,  qnicJcenedJ  together,  through 
the  faith  of  the  operation  of  God,  &c.iy  See  Poll  Syn.  and  Willet's 
Hex.  on  Epis.  to  Rom. 


268 

ing  and  sprinkling  have  all  and  each  a  dis- 
tinct word  exactly  answering  to  the  idea; 
and  that  no  word  can  be  found  in  the  Greek 
language  to  express  immersion  but  the  word 
now  in  debate." 

Eug.  That  the  Greek  language  is  as  pro- 
lific as  you  have  been  told,  I  do  not  dis- 
pute ;  but  that  there  is  no  other  word  but 
"  baptizo"  in  that  language  to  express  im- 
mersion, is  notoriously  false.  The  Greeks 
were  furnished  with  the  word  "bctpto"  which 
does  really  signify  to  dip,  plunge>  or  im- 
merse ;  and  this  very  word  is  used  by  the 
sacred  evangelists,  in  every  instance  where 
the  idea  of  "  dipping"  is  designed  to  be  con- 
veyed. This  word  our  Saviour  himself  used 
when  he  said  "  He  it  is  to  whom  I  shall  give 
a  sop  when  I  have  dipped  it.  And  when  he 
had  dipped  1he  sop  he  gave  it  to  Judas:" 
Job.  xiii.  2b.^  but  it  is  never  used  in  ap- 
plication to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  It 
seems  that  the  evangelists  knew  how  to  use  it, 
when  the  idea  of  immersion  was  to  be  con- 
veyed. What  then  could  have  hindered, 
yea,  how  could  they  have  avoided  the  adop- 

*  The  attempt  has  been  made  to  prove  that  '•  bapto"  does  not 
signify  merely  dipping  or  plunging,  but  a  continuance  in  that 
condition  for  the  purpose  of  colouring  or  dying,  as  cloth  is  dyed, 
and  this  idea  is  supposed  to  be  conveyed  in  Rev.  xix.  13-—"  ves- 
ture dipped  in  blood."  The  manifest  object  of  this  criticism  is 
to  make  "  bapto"  signify  something  more  than  "  immersion,"  in 
order  that  "  baptizo"  may  occupy  its  place.  But  did  the  rich 
man  request  that  Lazarus  might  dye  or  steep  the  tip  of  his  fin- 
ger in  water  ?  or  was  it  merely  to  dip  it,  and  then  fly  immedately 
to  his  relief? — Did  our  Saviour  mean  to  convey  the  idea  that  his 
is  disciples  soaked  their  hands  in  the  dish  with  him  ?  And  yet 
in  both  of  these  cases  the  word  "  bapto"  in  its  simple  «r  com* 
pound  form,  is  used. 


269 

lion  of  this  very  word,  in  reference  to  bap- 
tism, if  they  had  designed  to  inform  us  that 
immersion  was  intended  ?  This  richness  of 
the  Greek  language,  then,  instead  of  arguing 
in  favour  of  the  Baptist  scheme,  is  directly 
against  it. — I  think  it  would  be  well  for  those 
of  your  ministers  who  are  under  the  neces- 
sity of  "consulting  linguists,"  not  to  make 
too  positive  assertions,  on  the  ground  of  se- 
cond-hand information,  as  they  may  be  held 
responsible  for  other  men's  errors;  and  surely 
they  have  enough  of  their  own  to  answer  foiv 

I  come  now  to  the  second  argument  in  fa- 
vour of  immersion,  and  that  is  founded  on 
the  circumstances  under  which  baptism  is 
said  to  have  been  administered. 

Great  stress  is  laid  on  the  expression 
"  they  went  down  into  the  water,  and  came  up 
out  of  the  water."  This  is  often  wielded  as 
a  very  powerful  weapon  in  the  hands  of 
a  bold  declaimer  among  ignorant  people. 
Its  whole  force,  'however,  depends  on  the 
translation  of  two  litlJe  words  called  prepo- 
sitions, which  occur  hundreds  of  times  in 
the  New  Testament,  and  which  are  more 
frequently  translated  otherwise,  than  as  in 
this  case :  And  every  person,  who  is  the 
least  acquainted  with  the  Greek  language, 
knows,  that  here,  they  might  have  been  ren- 
dered to  and  from,  with  as  much  propriety 
as  into  and  out  of.  Does  it  then  appear  pro- 
bable, will  "  common  sense"  admii  the  idea, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  have  suspended 
an  ordinance,  the  essential  performance  o£ 
23* 


270 

which  depended  on  the  mode,  on  such  an  un- 
certain foundation?  The  argument  founded 
on  these  words  has  always  appeared  to  me 
so  perfectly  ridiculous,  that  I  should  not 
have  noticed  it,  if  it  were  not  for  the  conse- 
quence attached  to  it  by  some  weak  minds.* 
But  suppose  these  words  are  properly  ren- 
dered into  and  out  oj,  they  do  not  prove  im- 
mersion. Thousands  have  been  down  into 
the  water,  and  come  up  out  of  it,  who  never 
were  "  all  over  under  water,"  in  their  lives. 

*  An  advocate  for  immersion,  recently  holding  forth  this  ar- 
gument in  support  of  that  sentiment,  anticipated  the  common 
objection  that  our  Saviour  is  often  said  to  have  "  gone  up  into  a 
mountain  :"  to  which  he  answered  "  So  he  did,  and  I  SUPPOSE 
there  -was  a  cave  there."  Query.  Was  it  in  this  cave  that  the  de- 
vil "  shewed  him  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world  r"  for  we  are  ex- 
pressly informed  that  for  this  purpose  ;'  the  devil  took,  him  up 
ixxo  an  exceeding-  high  mountain,"  but  nothing  is  said  about  a 
cave  there.  But  if  our  Saviour  had  really  discovered  a  cave  in 
the  mountain,  did  he  expect  Peter  to  find  one  in  the  sea,  when  he 
commanded  him  to  go  eis  teen  tfialassdn  "  to  or  into  the  sea"  for 
the  purpose  of  taking  a  fish  ?  Mat.  xvii.  27.  Or,  did  he  command 
.him  to  dive  into  the  sea,  and  catch  the  fish  in  his  hands  ?  or,  did 
lie  mean  that  he  should  merely  go  to  the  water's  edge,  and  cast 
in  his  hook?  A  multitude  of  similar  examples  might  be  present- 
ed, to  shew  that  the  preposition  "  eis"  is  indifferently  rendered  to, 
into",  on,  at,  &c.  And  now,  will  the  world  believe  that-  the  men 
who  make  such  suppositions  are  the  strenuous  advocates  of  "ex- 
plicit warrant  r"  that  they  believe  nothing  without  a  "  Thus  saith 
the  Lord"  for  it  ? — But  another  man  of  a  great  deal  more  celeb- 
rity, has  ventu?'ed  to  defend  this  argument  in  print.  For  this 
purpose,  he  has  called  in  "  the  law  of  nature"  to  his  aid.  By  this 
T expect  he  means  the  same  that  Mr.  Booth  eails  "common 
sense."  **The  law  of  nature,"  says  he,  "  is  one  criterion  to  ex- 
plain scripture  by.  When  it  is  said  that  Jesus  went  up  into 
the  mountain,  nature  says  that  he  went  up  into  or  amongst  the 
trees."  Such  contemptible  trifling  as  this  deserves  no  better  an- 
swer than  it  has  already  received.  "  Not  so,"  says  a  reviewer 
of  this  production,  "for  it  is  impossible  for  a  man  to  go  info  the 
trees,  unless  he  coulel  find  hollow  ones.  But  it  proves  thatm  and 
into.ave  used  in  several  senses,  as  on,  among,  at,  &c."  Here  then 
the  argument  rests  precisely  where  it  stood  before,  viz.  that 
these  prepositions  are  sometimes  renderedone  way,  and  sometimes 
another,  and  that  without  any  violence  to  "  the  law  of  nature.* 


271 

Again,  in  arguing  in  favour  of  immersion, 
much  dependence  is  made  on  the  circum- 
stance that  John  is  said  to  have  baptized  at 
theriver  Jordan,  and  "in  Enon,  because  there 
was  much  water  there."  Here  it  is  a^ked,  if 
baptism  was  not  performed  by  immersion, 
why  such  places  were  selected  rather  than 
others  ?  The  common  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion is,  that  these  places  were  chosen  for  the 
accommodation  of  the  multitudes,  and  the 
beasts  with  which  they  travelled,  when  they 
flocked  in  crowds  from  all  parts  of  the  na- 
tion, to  hear  the  wondrous  man  who  prolaim- 
ed  the  approach  of  the  long  expected  Mes- 
siah. And  this  is  manifestly  the  object  in 
the  selection  of  Enon,  because  "  there  were 
many  waters  there."  This  is  the  literal  trans- 
lation of  the  passage,  and  tliis  was  the  pre- 
cise fact.  There  was  no  large  stream  or  bo- 
dy of  water  in  that  place;  but  many  springs 
or  rivulets  that  would  accommodate  the 
people. 

But  you  wilt  observe,  Lebbeus,  that  all 
the  circumstances  which  have  been  mention- 
ed, relate  exclusively  to  John's  baptism. 
This,  I  have  told  you,  is  not  Christian  bap- 
tism. Of  course,  if  it  could  be  satisfactorily 
proved  that  John  baptized  by  immersion^  it 
would  be  wholly  irrelevant  to  the  present 
controversy. 

Your  denomination  have  ever  pretended 
to  derive  their  succession  from  John,  and  I 
think  they  have  done  well  in  so  doing.  Not, 
that  this   is  the   fact ;    but  because   their 


272 

church  is  as  entirely  diverse  fj;ora  either  the 
Jewish  or  true  Christian  church,  as  John's 
administration  was  distinct  from  these.  In 
consequence  of  their  unfounded  claim,  they 
have  always  taken  for  granted  that  John's 
baptism  was  Christian  baptism.  Though 
this  has  been  disproved  a  thousand  times  by 
Psedobaptists,  yet,  until  very  lately,  we  have 
stood  alone  on  this  ground.  But  now  we 
have  the  labours  of  Mr.  Hall  to  support 
the  doctrine.  And  although  he  has  urged 
no  new  argument,  to  my  knowledge,  to 
prove  the  sentiment,  yet  as  he  is  a  distin- 
guished Bapiist,  wre  may  expect  (and  in- 
deed the  expectation  has  already  been  rea- 
lized) that  the  same  arguments  from  him, 
will  have  more  weight  with  that  denomina- 
tion, than  if  they  had  come  from  our  side  of 
the  question.  And  as  he  has  thus  torn  a- 
way  the  foundation  stone  of  the  Baptist 
church,  and  made  a  breach  in  the  wall  of 
separation,  which  excluded  the  Paedobap- 
tists  from  their  communion,  we  may  safely 
conclude  that  ihe  "  baseless  fabric"  will 
soon  crumble  into  ruins.  When  a  citadel 
that  is  closely  invested  without,  is  attacked 
by  her  own  troops  within;  yea,  when  "a 
captain  of  thousands"  begins  to  demolish 
her  bulwarks,  and  to  throw  open  her  gates 
to  the  besiegers,  her  destruction  is  inevitable. 
The  work  is  begun  both  in  Europe  and  A- 
meri^a,  and  this  catholic  age,  with  all  its 
catholic  institutions,  will  soon  complete  it. 
The  spirit  of  the  present  times,  though  a 


273 

gradual,  will  ultimately  prove  "a  consu- 
ming fire"  to  close  communion  sentiments. 
They  are  stubble  before  the  flame. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  establish  the  posi- 
tion that  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism. 

]■•  This  is  evident  from  the  object  of  John's 
administration.  He  was  sent  in  compliance 
with  an  ancient  prophecy,  for  the  exclusive 
purpose  of  "  preparing  the  way  of  the 
Lord."  At  the  time  of  his  advent,  the  most 
general  apostacy  and  religious  apathy  that 
had  ever  been  witnessed  in  Judea,  prevail- 
ed. Their  subjugation  by  the  Romans  had 
destroyed  the  spirit  of  the  nation,  and  they 
w7ere  ready  to  relinquish  all  hope  of  deliv- 
erance. In  order  to  arouse  their  attention 
and  prepare  their  minds  for  the  reception  of 
the  Messiah,  John  was  sent  to  preach  and 
baptize.  When  interrogated  as  to  his  char- 
acter and  the  object  of  his  mission,  "  He 
confessed  and  denied  not,  but  confessed,  I  am 
not  the  Christ"  But  "  I  am  the  voice  of  one 
crying  in  the  wilderness,  make  straight  the 
way  of  the  Lord  as  said  the  prophet  Esaius" 
John  i.  19,  23.  Here  then  was  the  object > 
the  exclusive  object  of  John's  embassy  ;  and 
he  accomplished  it  very  speedily  ;  for,  his 
proclamation,  "  The  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at 
hand,"  (not  already  come,  but  approaching 
or  drawing  nigh,)  aroused  the  whole  nation 
from  their  stupidity,  and  excited  an  univer- 
sal expectation  of  the  appearance  of  the, 
Messiah. 


274 

From  Ibis  view  of  the  subject  it  is  evident 
that  John's  administration  was  not  designed 
to  annul  or  supersede  the  Levitical  econo- 
my. Hence,  those  who  have  called  it  an 
"intermediate  link"  between  the  Jewish 
and  Christian  dispensation,  are  manifestly 
incorrect.  There  was  no  chasm  between 
them,  in  which  an  "intermediate  link"  could 
be  inserted.  The  Jewish  dispensation  did 
not  terminate  till  the  conclusion  of  our 
Lord's  ministry.  He  himself  conformed  to 
all  the  precepts  of  the  ceremonial  law  till 
the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  ;  and  he 
enjoined  it  upon  his  disciples  and  all  the 
multitude  "  to  observe  and  do  whatsoever*  the 
scribes  and  Pharisees  commanded"  Mat. 
xxiii.  1 — 3.  He  directed  the  leper  whom 
he  healed,  "  to  go  and  shew  himself  to  the 
priest,  and  offer  the  gift  that  Moses  command- 
ed for  a  testimony  unto  them,"  Mat.  viii.  4. 
But  what  puts  this  matter  beyond  all  dis- 
pute, is  the  declaration  of  Christ  respecting* 
John.  He  pronounces  him  the  greatest  of 
the  prophets,  but  at  the  same  time  declares, 
"  He  that  is  least  in  the  kingdom  of  God,  is 
greater  than  he."  Luke  vii.  2o.  The  "  king- 
dom of  God,"  here,  evidently  means,  the 
visible  church  under  the  Christian  dispensa- 
tion, the  same  which  John  had  declared  to 
be  ^ near  at  hand"  Hence,  if  John  was 
less  than  the  least  in  the  gospel  church,  it  is 
manifest  that  he  did  not  belong  to  that 
church.  All  these  facts  atFord  conclusive 
testimony,  that  the  Jewish  dispensation  had 


275 

not  been  superseded  by  John's  ministry  ; 
but  on  the  contrary  that  it  stood  firm,  as 
has  been  shewn,  till  the  crucifixion  of  our 
Lord;  at  which  time  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation commenced. — You  may  indeed 
"unite  two  pie^s  of  a  chain  by  a  middle 
link;"  but  it  would  be  absurd  to  attempt 
this  with  a  solid  bar  of  iron.  You  may  con- 
nect two  adjacent  buildings,  by  erecting 
one  between  them;  but  you  cannot  do  so 
with  those  which  stand  in  contact,  upon  one 
and  the  same  foundation  :  You  may,  how- 
ever, without  altering  the  form  of  either, 
or  removing  their  foundation,  erect  a  porch 
which  will  serve  as  a  convenient,  and,  in 
some  cases,  a  necessary  egress,  from  the  one 
to  the  other.  And  this  was  the  precise  ob- 
ject of  John's  administration.  Therefore  his 
ministry  was  no  part  of  the  Christian  dis- 
pensation; consequently,  his  baptism  was 
not  Christian  baptism. 

2.  The  object  and  import  of  John's  bap- 
tism were  essentially  different  from  Chris- 
tian baptism.  As  John  was  sent  for  the  spe- 
cial purpose  of  arousing  the  expectations  of 
the  Jews,  and  preparing  them  for  the  recep- 
tion of  the  Messiah,  it  was  perfectly  reason- 
able and  proper  that  he  should  be  entrusted 
with  some  religious  rite,  which  should  be 
applied  to  those  who  professed  a  belief  in 
his  proclamation.  Therefore  he  was  in- 
structed to  baptize  with  water.  And  "all 
Judea  and  Jerusalem''  flocked  to  him  and 
were  baptized  of  him.  Had  John  intimated 


276 

that  his  administration  was  designed  to  su- 
persede the  ceremonial  law,  this  would  not 
have  been  the  case.  The  Jews  would  have 
persecuted  him  just  as  they  did  Jesus  ;  and 
he  would  have  been  without  any  means  of 
justifying  himself,  even  in  tWe  view  of  those 
who  were  truly  pious;  for  "  John  did  no 
miracles,"  and  he  had  no  commission  to 
perform  them. 

John's  baptism  might  have  been  typical 
or  emblematical  of  the  privileges  of  the 
Christian  church,  for  he  says,  "  I  indeed 
baptize  you  with  water  unto  repentance; 
but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is  mightier  than 
I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear.  He 
shall  baptize  yeu  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and 
with  fire."  But,  the  special  object  of  this 
rite  was  in  perfect  unison  with  his  ministry, 
— to  prepare  a  people  for  the  reception  of 
the  Messiah.  It  was  called  "  the  baptism  of 
repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins ,"  because 
those  who  were  admitted  to  that  rite,  were 
required  to  profess  repentance.  But  doubt- 
less thousands  who  were  baptized  by  John 
were  insincere  in  that  profession,  and  en- 
tirely mistaken  with  respect  to  the  charac- 
ter of  the  person  whose  advent  he  predicted. 
They  verily  believed  him,  when  he  declar- 
ed that  the  promised  Messiah  would  soon 
appear  ;  but  they  expected  he  would  be  a 
temporal  prince,  who  would  deliver  them 
out  of  the  power  of  the  Romans,  establish 
the  kingdom  of  Judah  on  a  permanent  ba- 
sis, and  defend  them  from  all  their  enemies. 


277 

In  a  word,  they  supposed  that  be  would  be, 
just  what  the  Baptists  would  fain  make  the 
God  of  Israel  from  the  beginning,  "  a  tem- 
poral King  or  Governor.  So  debased  and 
erroneous  were  their  views  of  the  expected 
Prince.  And  hence,  when  he  made  his  ap- 
pearance under  circumstances  of  indigence, 
and  explicitly  declared  that  "  his  kingdom 
was  not  of  this  world,"  they,  almost  "  with 
one  consent,"  rejected  him:  notwithstand- 
ing the  expectations  which  they  had  en- 
tertained, and  the  profession  they  had 
made.* 

Christian  baptism  is  a  token  of  the  cov- 
enant of  grace — an  external  sign  of  internal 
grace — a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith 
— the  mark  of  membership  in  the  Christian 
church.  In  all  these  particulars,  it  differed 
from  the   rite  which   John    administered. — 


*  The  Baptists  reject  the  idea  that  the  Jewish  church  was  the 
true  church,  and  scorn  to  derive  their  origin  from  that  source, 
on  account  of,  what  they  call,  its  extreme  corruption  :  and  yet 
tliey  strenuously  advocate  the  notion,  that  their  system  is  derived, 
by  regular  succession,  from  John  the  Baptist.  And  pray,  what 
do  they  gain  by  taking  this  ground  ?  Verily  nothing,  but  a  church 
more  corrupt  and  hypocritical  than  ever  the  Jews  had  been,  in  any 
preceding- period  of  their  national  existence.  This  is  as  clear  as  the 
meridian  sun.  For  we  are  informed  that"  all  the  people  counted  John, 
that  he  ivas  a  prophet  indeed:"  In  consequence  of  this  general  per- 
suasion of  his  divine  commission,  "  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea, 
and  all  the  region  round  about  Jordan  -went  out  and  ivere  baptized  of 
him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins  ."  The  "  publicans"  and  "  sol- 
diers" and  "  all  the  people  that  heard  Jam  were  baptized"  with  the 
baptism  of  John.  From  these  facts,  it  is  evident,  that  vast  mul- 
titudes, even  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish  nation,  received  this 
religious  rite  :  and  yet,  when  Christ  revealed  himself  to  the  peo- 
ple ;  yea,  when  John  pointed  him  out  saying,  "  Behold  the  Lamb 
of  God"  not  one  in  a  thousand,  would  receive  him.  And  after  our 
Lord  himself  and  his  disciples  had  laboured  and  wrought  mira- 
cles among  them  for  the  space  of  three  years  or  more,  and  had 

24 


273 

"  The  conviction  demanded;"  says  Mr. Hall, 
u  in  the  two  case*  was  totally  distinct — The 
profession  demanded  in  the  baptism  of  John, 
was  nothing  more  than  a  solemn  recogni- 
tion of  that  ore  at  article  of  the  Jewish  faith, 
the  appearance  of  the  Messiah,*  accompa- 
nied with  this  additional  circumstance,  that 
it  was  nigh  at  hand.  The  faith  required  by 
the  apostles  included  a  persuasion  of  all  the 
miraculous  facts  which  they  attested,  com- 
prehending the  preternatural  conception, 
the  Deity,  incarnation  and  atonement,  the 
miracles,  the  death  and  the  resurrection  of 
the  Lord  Jesus."  Hence,  as  the  import  of 
these  two  rites  is  essentially  different,  they 
must  be    entirely   distinct :    consequently, 

".'made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than  John"  himself,  (the  bap- 
tism which  they  then  administered  being  of  the  same  import  and 
design  with  John's,)  I  say,  after  all  this,  it  is  evident  that  there 
was  but  here  and  there  a  true  believer  in  the  whole  nation.  The 
church  in  Jerusalem,  previous  to  the  day  of  Pentecost,  consisted 
of  but  "  about  a  hundred  and  twenty  names  ;"  and  the  greatest 
number  of  "  brethren"  or  disciples  before  that  time  that  we  any 
where  read  of,  is  the  "  more  than  500"  who  saw^him  after  his 
resurrection.  1  Cor.  xv.  6.  Where,  then,  are  the  thousands  and. 
tens  of  thousands  whom  John  and  the  disciples  of  our  Lord  had 
baptized  ?  If  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea  had  not  made  a  hypocriti- 
cal profession  of  repentance,  when  they  received  that  rite,  Christ 
never  could  have  been  condemned  and  crucified  there.  But  doubt- 
less they  were  hypocrites.  They  professed  to  believe  that  a  great 
temporal  prince  was  about  to  make  his  appearance,  but  when  the 
meek  and  iowht  Jesus  was  revealed  as  their  king,  they  could  join 
with  the  rabble  in  crying  "  A~xuy  xvith  him,  away  with  him ,•  cnici- 
\  crucify  him"  And  yet,  according  to  the  Baptist  scheme,  all 
who  had  been  previously  baptized  were  true  members  of  the 
gospel  church.  Then  indeed  it  may  safely  be  regarded  as  the 
true  antitype  of  the  Jewish  church  :  not,  however,  in  her  best 
estate,  but  in  seasons  of  the  greatest  declension  and  apostacy. 

!t  coems  then,  Mr.  Hall  believes,  that  there  were  "article? 
off^ilh"  in  the  Jewish  church  ;  and  that  "  a  Messiah  to  come" 
was  a  prominent  ariicle  iu  their  confession. 


279 

John's  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism. 

3.  Ctiristian  baptism  was  originally,  as  at  the 
present  time,  administered  in  the  name  of  the 
Ti  iune  God, Father, Son  and  Holy  Ghost  ; 
and  this  form  is  essential  to  the  administration 
of  that  holy  ordinance.  Thus  our  Saviour 
commanded  his  disciples  when  he  gave  them 
their  commission,  and  thus  they  practised. 
But  John  did  not  thus  baptize.  Nay,  when 
he  commenced  his  ministry,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity  had  never  been  expressed  in  those 
connected  terms,  and  John  himself  declares 
that  he  did  not  know  Jesus.  "  And  I  knew 
him  not,  but  that  he  should  be  made  mani- 
fest to  Israel;  therefore  am  Icome  baptizing 
with  water. — And  1  knew  him  not,  but  he 
that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water,  the  same 
said  unto  me,  upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the 
Spirit  descending  and  remaining  on  him,  the 
same  is  he  which  baptizeth  with  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  I  saw  and  bare  record  that  this 
is  the  Son  of  Cod."  Joh.  i.  31,  33,  34. 

4.  Those  who  identify  John's  baptism 
with  Christian  baptism,  involve  themselves 
in  a  monstrous  absurdity.  Instead  of  ma- 
king Christ  the  Found er  of  the  Christian 
church,  they  ascribe  this  honour  to  John  ; 
(though  he  himself  repeatedly  disclaimed 
it ;)  and  reduce  the  Great  King  and  Head 
of  the  church  to  the  capacity  of  one  of  John's 
disciples.  As  absurd  as  this  appears,  and  as 
abhorrent  as  the  idea  was  to  John  himself, 
(for  he  seems  to  have  apprehended  this  con- 
clusion, and   therefore   declined   baptizing 


2*)0 

Christ  when  be  first  applied,)  there  are  those 
at  the  present  day  who  publicly  advocate 
the  sentiment.  A  Baptist  elder  of  some 
considerable  celebrity,  says,  "  Was  not  Je- 
sus baptized  by  John  to  fulfil  all  righteous- 
ness  1  Was  not  Jesus  therefore  a  BAPTIST  ? 
These  things  are  so."  This  is  a  fine  spe- 
cimen of  Baptist  logic.  First  ask  a  ques- 
tion or  two,  and  then  affirm,  and  thus  the 
proposition  is  established.  Of  this,  if  I  had 
time,  I  might  present  a  multitude  of  exam- 
ples from  the  writings  of  those  who  have  at- 
tempted to  defend  that  scheme. — But  why 
all  this  zeal  to  prove  that  Christ  was  a  Bap- 
tist, rather  than  John  a  Christian  ?  Why, 
forsooth,  in  order  that  they  may  have  the 
baptism  of  Christ,  for  a  subject  of  declama- 
tion in  favour  of  adult  baptism. 

As  the  example  of  Christ  in  this  particu- 
lar is  often  urged  for  the  imitation  of  Chris- 
tians, and  has  considerable  influence  with 
unenlightened  consciences,  J  shall  here  ex- 
pose its  fallacy.  Christ  was  indeed  bapti- 
zed by  John,  but  not  with  John's  baptism. 
For,  1.  It  was  "  the  baptism  of  repentance  for 
the  remission  of  sins'"  that  John  administered : 
but  Christ  had  no  sins  to  repent  of,  or  which 
needed  remission. — 2.  It  was  not  believer's 
baptism  which  Christ  received  from  John; 
for,  he  had  no  occasion  for  faith,  and  he  him- 
self was  the  great  object  of  faith.  3.  It  was 
not  Christian  baptism  which  he  received,  for 
that  would  have  been  to  be  baptized  in  his 
own  name.     These  are  facts  which  no  man 


281 

can  gainsay.  Where  then,  I  ask,  is  there  any 
thing  in  Christ's  baptism  which  is  designed 
for  the  imitation  of  Christians  ?  He  did  not 
receive  "the  baptism  of  repentance,"  nor 
"  believer's  baptism,"  nor  "Christian  bap- 
tism." What  then  was  the  import  of  his 
baptism?  This  is  evident  from  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  and  from  the  conversa- 
tion between  our  Lord  and  John.  When 
Christ  first  applied  for  baptism,  John  refu- 
sed him  from  the  consideration  of  his  own  un- 
worthiness.  Did  not  John  manifestly  dread, 
to  perform  an  act  which  would  seem  to  im- 
ply, what  the  modern  Baptists  are  fond  of 
believing,  that  Christ  became  one  of  his  dis- 
ciples? And  until  Jesus  had  explained  to 
him  the  object  of  his  application  and  the 
true  import  of  the  act,  he  would  not  consent 
to  baptize  him.  But  as  soon  as  Christ  had 
said,  "  Thus  it  becomelh  us  to  juljil  all  right- 
eousness, he  suffered  him*9  But  what  right- 
eousness did  Christ  herein  fulfil?  Notwith- 
standing Baptists  have  often  attempted  to 
ridicule  the  idea,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say, 
that  it  was  in  compliance  w  ith  that  precept 
of  the  ceremonial  law  which  respected  the 
consecration  of  the  priests.  See  Exo,  xxix. 
and  Lev.  viii.  And  although,  on  the  ground 
of  our  scheme,  some  of  our  opponents  have, 
I  had  almost  said,  blasphemously  called  the 
Hi^h  Priest  of  our  profession  "  an  inlerlo- 
//^r,"  because  he  was  not  born  of  the  tribe 
of  Levi,  yet  I  still  shall  maintain  the  senti- 
ment, and  leave  the  authors  of  such  profane 
24* 


282 

ridicule,  to  answer  for  their  conduct  to  "the 
Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah." 

In  support  of  the  idea  which  I  have  said 
was  implied  in  Christ's  baptism,  I  will  just 
make  the  following  remarks.  1.  The  priests 
were  to  enter  on  the  duties  of  their  office 
when  they  wrere  thirty  years  old.  It  was 
at  this  age  that  Christ  was  baptized  by  John. 
2.  In  the  inauguration  of  the  priests,  they 
were  to  be  washed  with  water.  Thus  Christ 
was  washed  in  Jordan.  3.  After  being  wash- 
ed, they  were  to  be  anointed  with  oil.  So 
Christ  when  he  came  up  from  the  water,  re- 
ceived the  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost:  and 
therein  was  fulfilled  that  prophetic  allusion 
of  the  Psalmist ;  "  Therefore  God,  thy  God 
hath  anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  thy  fellows.*  Psal.  xlv.  7.  Hen.  1,  9. 
The  ancient  priests  and  prophets,  who  had 
been  partakers  of  the  Hoi}  Ghost,  had  receiv- 
ed it  in  a  limited  degree  ;  but  Jesus  receiv- 
ed the  Spirit  "without  measure."  And  fi- 
nally, all  this  was  done  in  obedience  to  an 
existing  statute,  and  therefore  was  a  "ful- 
filment o)  righteousness." 

Now,  I  appeal  once  more  to  "common 
sense,"  (for  I  am  as  fond  of  submitting  to 
this  umpire  as  any  of  our  opponents  are, 
audi  really  wish  they  would  appeal  to 
it  more  frequently  than  they  do,)  wheth- 
er Christ  designed  by  his  baptism  to  be- 
come one  of  John's  disciples,  or  to  be  in- 
augurated into  the  priesthood?  At  all  events, 
he  did  not  receive   a  baptism  which   any 


Christian  can  imitate.  Consequently  to 
urge  the  example  of  Christ,  in  1  his  particu- 
lar, as  an  argument  to  induce  conscientious 
persons  to  go  "  all  over  under  water"  is  to 
use  an  argument  without  foundation. 

5.  That  John's  baptism  was  not  Christian 
baptism,  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  the  a- 
postles,  in  their  administration,  paid  no  re- 
spect to  the  former,  but  administered  the 
Christian  rite  to  John's  disciples  in  common 
with  others,  If  there  were  no  positive  evi- 
dence of  this  fact,  it  might  safely  be  inferred 
from  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  We 
have  seen  that  the  great  body  of  the  Jewish 
nation  received  John's  baptism;  and  yet 
when  the  apostles  admitted  their  converts 
to  the  fellowship  of  the  Church,  they  bapti- 
zed them  without  discrimination.  The  30(30 
converts  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  all 
baptized  by  the  apostles  ;  and  yei,  no  doubt, 
many  of  them  had  been  previously  baptiz- 
ed by  John. 

But  we  are  not  left  to  decide  this  point 
by  balancing  probabilities.  In  the  sixth 
of  Acts,  we  have  the  fact  explicitly  declar- 
ed. In  one  of  his  journies,  "  Paul  came  to 
Ephesus,  and  finding  certain  disciples,  said 
unto  them,  Have  ye  received  the  Holy 
Ghost,  si  nee  ye  believed.  And  they  said  un- 
to him,  We  have  not  so  much  as  heard  whe- 
ther there  be  any  Holy  Ghost.  And  he  said 
unto  them,  Unto  what  then  were  ye  bapti- 
zed ?  And  they  said,  Unto  John's  baptism. 
Then  said  Paul,  John  verily  baptized  with 


234 

the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the 
people,  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
which  should  come  after  him,  that  is  on 
Christ  Jesus.  When  they  heard  this,  they 
were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus." — This  plain  statement  of  facts,  in 
which  some  of  John's  disciples  are  declared 
to  have  received  Christian  baptism,  has  pro- 
duced great  trouble  among  the  Baptists; 
and  the  invention  of  the  whole  denomination 
has  been  put  to  the  rack,  in  order  to  discov- 
er some  method  to  distort  the  passage  and 
so  destroy  its  testimony  against  their  scheme*. 
And  what  is  the  result?  Why  truly  this. 
"The  writer  of  the  Acts,  say  the  Baptists,  in 
recording  the  latter  part  of  this  interview 
between  Paul  and  these  disciples,  does  not 
state  what  Paul  did  to  them,  but  but  what  he 
told  them,  that  John  said  and  did  to  them. 
Thus,  Paul  said,  John  verily  baptized  with 
the  baptism  of  repentance,  saying  unto  the 
people  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
which  should  come  after  him,  that  is  on 
Christ  Jesus.  When  they  (that  is,  the  peo^ 
pie  to  whom  John  preached,  these  disciples 
being  a  part  of  them)  heard  this  (from  John) 
they  were  baptized  (by  John)  in  the  name 
of  the  Lord  Jesus." 

Now  is  not  this  more  than  contemptible? 
Is  it  not  a  shameful  perversion  of  language, 
and  an  awful  act  of  violence  on  Divine  rev- 
elation ?  If  such  liberties  are  to  be  indulged, 
then  may  the  infidel  say,  "  the  scriptures 
can  be  made  to  speak  any  thing."  But  let 
those  who  are  guilty  of  such  perversion,  be- 


285 

ware  of  the  curse  denounced  against  those 
who  add  to,  or  lake  from  the  testimony  of 
God.  Mr.  Hall,  in  remarking  on  this  expo- 
sition, thus  expresses  himself.  "In  the 
whole  compass  of  theological  controversy, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  assign  a  stronger  in- 
stance of  the  force  of  prejudice  in  obscuring 
a  plain  matter  of  fact ;  nor  is  it  easy  to  con- 
jecture, what  could  be#  the  temptation  to 
do  such  violence  to  the  language  of  scrip- 
ture, and  to  every  principle  of  sober  criti- 
cism, unless  it  were  the  horror  which  certain 
divines  have  conceived,  against  every  thing 
which  bore  the  shadow  of  countenancing 
anabaptistical  error.  The  ancient  commen- 
tators appear  to  have  felt  no  such  appre- 
hension, but  to  have  followed  without  scru- 
ple the  natural  import  of  the  passage." 

But  in  order  to  shew  the  absurdity  of  this 
perverse  comment,  permit  me  to  remind 
you  of  what  has  been  already  shewn,  viz. 
That  John  did  not  baptize  in  the  name  of 
the  Trinity  or  of  the  Lord  Jesus.  Of  this 
we  have  renewed  evidence  \t\  this  passage. 
These  disciples  declare,  "  We  have  not  so 
much  as  heard  whether  there  be  any  Holy 
Ghost  ;"  which  must  have  been  false,  if  they 
had  been  baptized  in  his  name,— Moreover, 
if  nothing  more  is  inferided  by  this  record, 
than  to  inform  us  what  Paul  said  to  these 
disciples,  how  sagely  the  great  apostle  of 
the  Gentiles  was  .employed,  in  telling  those 
people  what  they  knew  a  great  deal  more 
about,  than  he  himself  did  !  And  how  couhi. 


2&6 

such  a  recital  prepare  them  for  the  gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  the  bestowment  of  which 
is  recorded  in  the  succeeding  verse.  "  And 
when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon  them, 
(that  is,  the  persons  who  had  been  baptized 
in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  which  ac- 
cording to  the  Baptist  exposition  must  mean 
all  the  disciples  of  John,)  the  Holy  Ghost 
came  on  them,  and  they  spake  with  tongues 
and  prpphjBcied."  Well  might  Mr.  Hall  style 
this  "ineffably  absurd." 

But  after  all,  some  have  professed  to  pro- 
duce an  "explicit  warrant"  against  the  re- 
baptism  of  these  disciples  :  and  what  is  it  ? 
Why  plainly  this,  that  St.Paul  declares  to 
the  Corinthian  church,  "  I  baptized  none  of 
you  but  Crispus  and  Gains,  and  the  house- 
hold of  Stephanas."  1  Cor.  i.  14.  16.  This  is 
truly  a  noble  discovery.  Because  Paul  had 
baptized  only  a  few  persons  at  Corinth,  there- 
fore, he  did  not  baptize  any  at  Ephesus.— 
This  is  another  specimen  of  "  logical  rea- 
soning." But  suppose  we  admit  it  to  be 
correct,  for  no  doubt  Paul  carefully  avoid- 
ed the  administration  of  that  ordinance  when 
the  aid  of  others  could  be  obtained  ;  was  he 
destitute  of  such  aid  at  Ephesus?  Did  he 
not  usually  have  a  companion  in  his  jour- 
nies  who  could  perform  that  (iutyl  And 
when  he  set  out  upon  this  excursion,  are  we 
not  expressly  informed,  that  he  took  Silas 
with  him,  whom  we  find  with  him  in  almost 
every  place  whither  he  went?  And  though 
Silas  abode  with  Timotheus  a  short  time  at 


287 

Berea  when  Paul  left  that  place,  yet  we 
find  them  joining  him  again  at  Corinth,  just 
before  he  set  out  for  Ephesus.  What  then 
is  the  amount  of  thi^  explicit  warrant?  It  is 
the  mere  ghost  of  a  shadow. 

From  all  this  evidence  the  conclusion  is 
irresistible,  that  John's  baptism  was  not 
Christian  baptism;  and  consequently,  neither 
the  mode  nor  the  subjects  of  the  former  rite, 
if  they  could  be  clearly  ascertained,  can  be 
urged  as  a  precedent  for  the  latter. 

But,  says  one,  who  probably  begins  to 
doubt  the  firmness  of  his  foundation  on  John 
the  Baptist,  "  If  it  is  true  that  John's  bap- 
tism is  done  away,  and  that  the  baptism  in- 
stituted by  Jesus,  and  practised  by  the  a~ 
postles  is  radically  different  from  that  of 
John,  it  is  no  pjoof at  all  for  the  baptism  of 
infants"  Very  true,  we  do  not  argue  it  for 
that  purpose.  But  it  wrests  out  of  the 
mouths  of  our  opponents  all  the  circumstan- 
tial evidence  in  favour  of  immersion.  It 
leaves  no  ground  of  declamation  about  riv- 
ers and  ponds  or  lakes,  and  the  people  go- 
ing down  into  the  water  and  coming  up  out  of 
the  water.  All  these  are  swept  away  at  a  dash ; 
and  when  these  are  gone,  although  they  have 
no  real  weight  in  them  if  they  could  be  pre- 
served, the  most  popular  arguments  of  the 
Baptists  in  favour  of  immersion  are  lost  for 
ever.  For  although  they  profess  to  make 
great  dependence  on  their  criticism  on  the 
word  "  baptizo"  yet,  in  the  view  of  igno- 
rant people,  this  is  nothing  in  comparison 


288 

with  the  river  Jordan,  and  the  going -down  in- 
to, and  coming  up  out  of  the  water.  This,  the 
Baptist  preachers  perfectly  understand;  and 
hence,  these  circumstances  constitute  the 
burden  of  their  declamations  on  the  banks 
of  rivers,  and  the  margin  of  mill  ponds. 

But,  as  I  have  already  observed,  with  the 
baptism  of  John,  all  this  circumstantial  evi- 
dence is  swept  away  ;  for  there  is  but  a  sin- 
gJr  instance  of  Christian  baptism  in  which 
this  phraseology  occurs;  and  the  necessary 
circumstances  of  that  case  were  such,  as  ful- 
ly to  explain  the  reason  of  its  adoption,  f 
here  allude  to  the  case  of  the  Eunuch  who 
was  baptized  by  Philip.  They  were  jour- 
neying in  a  carriage,  and,  of  course,  had  no 
means  for  administering  the  ordinance  in 
any  mode  whatever.  Therefore,  when 
they  came  to  a  certain  water,  the  Eunuch 
said,  "See  water;  what  doth  hinder  me  to 
be  baptized?"  He  does  not  say  whether 
there  was  more  or  less  water;  whether  it  was 
a  river  or  a  brook,  or  only  a  small  fountain. 
Then  they  "went  down"  from  the  chariot 
to  the  water,  and  he  was  baptized.  Now, 
without  insisting  on  the  fact  stated  by  tra- 
vellers, that  in  this  region  there  is  no  stream 
of  water  "more  than  ancle  deep,"  if  this 
phraseology,  in  this  case,  proves  the  immer- 
sion of  the  eunuch,  it  equally  proves  the  im- 
mersion of  Philip.  This  idea  T  know  is  of- 
ten treated  by  our  opponents  as  a  quibble ; 
but  it  is  a  solemn  fact;  for,  "they  went  down 
both  of  them  into  the  water,  bqth  Philip  and 


289 

the  eunuch,  and  he  baptized  himP  To  say 
that  the  immersion  is  implied  in  the  word 
"baptized"  is  to  surrender  all  the  circumstan- 
tial evidence  of  the  passage,  and  to  build 
on  a  foundation  which  has  already  been  de- 
molished.—  In  all  the  other  instances  in  which 
Christian  baptism  is  recorded,  the  circum- 
stantial evidence  is  decidedly  against  im- 
mersion. In  the  case  of  the  three  thousand 
converts  on  the  day  of  pentecost,  I  will 
make  two  or  three  remarks. 

1.  There  were  no  conveniences  at  hand 
for  immersion.  There  were  no  streams  or 
fountains  in  Jerusalem  in  which  it  could  have 
taken  place.  The  baths  of  the  temple  could 
not  have  been  procured,  at  any  time,  for 
Christian  purposes  ;  but  then,  they  were  oc- 
cupied, it  being  the  feast.  And  if  the  peo- 
ple had  been  wandering  about  for  the  pur- 
pose of  procuring  private  baths,  (if  any  such 
there  were  which  were  large  enough  for 
immersion,)  the  accomplishment  of  the  work 
would  have  been  impossible.     But — 

2.  If  the  ocean  had  been  at  hand,  it  is  dif- 
ficult to  imagine  how  such  a  vast  multitude 
could  have  been  immersed  by  the  apostles, 
in  the  remaining  part  of  the  day.  Dr.  Gill, 
in  order  to  avoid  this  objection,  has  indeed 
called  in  the  seventy  disciples  to  the  aid  of 
the  apostles :  but  as  their4commission,  like 
John's,  was  designed  merely  to  prepare  the 
way  of  the  Lord,  and  was  therefore  tempo- 
rary; and  especially  as  the  scripture  is  silent 
on  that  subject,  I  presume  everv  consistent 

25 


290 

advocate  of  "  explicit  warrant,"  if  there  be 
such  a  creature  in  our  world,  will  cheerful- 
ly consign  this  conjecture  io  "the  cave  in  the 
mountain."  The  Baptists  pretend  that  there 
is  no  difficulty  in  this  case,  on  their  princi- 
ples. If  not,  why  do  they  contrive  so  ma- 
ny absurd  expedients  to  get  rid  of  it?  Why 
not  shoulder  the  objection  and  carry  it  off, 
if  there  is  no  weight  in  it?  But  no!  their 
constant  wincing  makes  it  evident  that  it 
presses  hard  upon  them.  One  of  Dr.  Gill's 
expedients  I  have  already  mentioned  :  now 
for  another.  "  Though  they  were  added  to 
the  church  in  one  and  the  same  day,  it  does 
not  follow  that  they  were  baptized  in  one 
day."  But  how  so?  In  the  introduction  of 
the  subject,  he  says,  "  Though  it  is  not  a 
"church  ordinance,  it  is  an  ordinance  of  God, 
"  and  a  part  and  branch  of  public  worship. 
"When  I  say,  it  is  not  a  church  ordinance,  I 
"mean  it  is  not  an  ordinance  administered 
"  in  the  church,  but  out  of  it,  and  in  order  to 
"  admission  into  it,  and  communion  with  it ; 
"  it  is  preparatory  to  it,  and  a  qualification 
"  for  it ;  it  does  not  make  a  person  a  mem- 
"ber  of  the  church,  or  admit  him  into  a  vi- 
"  sible  church  ;  persons  must  first  be  baptized 
"  and  then  added  to  the  church,  as  the  three 
"thousand  converts  were."  But  after 
writing  24  pages  he  again  introduces  the 
three  thousand,  and  to  get  rid  of  the  diffi- 
culty of  immersing  them  all  in  a  part  of 
one  afternoon,  now  asserts  that  "  though 
"  they  were  added  to  the  church  in  one  and  thf 


291 

*  same  day,  it  does  not  follow  that  they  were 
ci  baptized  in  one  day." — That  they  had  not 
been  previously  baptized,  is  evident  from 
the  fact  that  Christian  baptism  had  nevei 
been  administered  before  that  day :  and  e- 
ven,  if  it  had  been,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  the  apostles  would  have  admitted  then) 
to  that  holy  rite  before  their  conversion. — 
Here  then,  if  I  can  understand  English,  is  a  flat 
contradiction.  If  one  of  your  preachers 
"  were  sentenced  to  reconcile  these  asser- 
tions with  sound  reason  or  the  word  of  God," 
or  even,  with  each  other ',  he  might  well  say, 
"  my  punishment  is  greater  than  I  can  bear.** 
But  why  is  this  sentiment  advanced  at  all  ? 
When  Dr.  Gill  had  called  the  "  seventy"  to 
the  aid  of  the  apostles  for  the  immersion 
of  the  three  thousand,  which,  he  says,  would 
be  but  "  six  or  seven  and  thirty  persons 
each  ;$s  and  had  appropriated  to  their  use 
°  a  number  of  private  baths  in  Jerusalem" — 
u  many  pools  in  the  city" — "the  various  a- 
partments  and  things  in  the  temple" — "  the 
dipping  room  of  the  high  priest" — "  the 
molten  sea  and  the  ten  brazen  lavers;  "all  of 
which  they  might  be  allowed  the  use  of,  as 
they  were  of  the  temple  ;"  and  "  having  favour 
with  all  the  people!!!"  yea,  and  had  even 
provkled  every  convert  with  a  change  of 
raiment;  and  how?  will  you  believe  that  he 
says,  "  it  was  only  every  one's  providing  and 
bringing  change  of  raiment  for  himself  ?*' — 
as  though  these  persons,  with  hearts  of  en- 
mity to  the  gospel,  not  to  say  any  thing  of 


292 

Their  ignorance  of  the  Christian  ordinances, 
had  come  up  to  Jerusalem  and  to  the  tem- 
ple, with  such  a  prepossession  that  they 
should  be  put  completely  under  water  be- 
fore they  returned,  that  each  had  provided 
himself  with  a  change  of  raiment  for  the  oc- 
casion :  I  say,  when  Dr.  Gill  had  furnished 
the  apostles  with  so  much  assistance,  and 
the  converts  with  all  these  conveniences  for 
immersion,  and  even  informed  us,  in  a  note, 
that  "  ten  thousand  had  been  baptized  in 
one  day  by  Austin  the  Monk ;"  and  "  twen- 
ty thousand  in  one  day  by  a  missionary  of 
Photius  the  Patriarch,"  why  should  he  re- 
serve any  of  the  three  thousand  for  another 
day? — Surely  Dr.  Gill  could  not  have  re- 
posed much  confidence  in  the  credulity  of 
his  readers. 

But,  although  I  am  willing  to  admit 
that  the  baptism  of  a  man  on  the  same 
day,  does  not  follow  of  course  from  the  dec- 
laration that  he  was  received  into  the 
church  at  a  given  time,  yet,  I  do  feel 
under  an  absolute  necessity  of  believing 
that  the  three  thousand  were  all  bapti- 
zed on  the  same  day,  or  else,  I  must  dis- 
credit the  word  of  God :  for  the  sa- 
cred penman  declare?,  "THEN,"  at  that 
very  time;  "  they  that  gladly  received  his 
words  were  baptized,  and  the  same  day,  there 
were  added  about  three  thousand  souls." 
For  myself,  then,  I  do  believe,  that  they  were 
not  only  baptized  on  that  same  day  without 
immersion,  but  by  sprinkling  ;  and  that  pro- 
bably not  one  by  one;    but  as  many  at  a 


293  - 

time  as  could  conveniently  approach  the 
administrator,  and  profess  their  faith  in  a 
crucified  Saviour: — that  they  were  sprin- 
kled just  as  Moses  sprinkled  the  blood  of 
the  covenant  on  the  people, — and  that  the 
baptism  of  this  promiscuous  multitude,  from 
all  parts  of  the  world,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Christian  dispensation,  was  an 
inceptive,  but  literal  accomplishment  of 
that  prophecy,  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations"* 

At  the  baptism  of  Saul,  of  Cornelius,  of 
Lydia,  and  of  the  jailer,  we  hear  nothing  of 
baths,  rivers  or  ponds  of  water.  Of  the 
first  it  is  said,  "He  received  sight  forth- 
with and  arose  and  was  baptized."  No 
change  of  place,  or  process  of  time  is  even 
intimated. — In  the  second  instance,  Peter 
inquires  not,  "Who  will  allow  us  the  priv- 
ilege of  their  bath?  but,  "  who  can  forbid 
water  that  these  should  not  be  baptized  V9 
If  this  phraseology  contains  any  circum- 
stantial evidence,  it  is  this  ;  that  the  water 
was  to  be  brought  to  the  candidates,  and  not 
the  candidates  carried  to  the  water. — In  the 
case  of  Lydia,  it  is  true,  we  are  previously 
informed,  that  they  were  near  a  river;  but 
when  her  baptism  and  that  of  her  household 
are  spoken  of,  there  is  nothing  said  of  their 
going  down  info,  or  coming  up  out  of  the  wa- 
ter.— And  with  respect  to  the  jailer,  the  same 

*  I  wish  the  reader  to  turn  to  Isa.  lii.  and  after  reading  it,  let 
him  judge  for  himself,  whether  the  prophecy  in  that  chapter  doe* 
not  refer,  at  least  inceptively,  to  the  opening-  of  the  new  dif  pen 
sation. 

25* 


294 

remarks,  as  in  the  former  instances,  are  a]> 
plicable,  with  this  addition  ;  that  the  record 
of  the  transaction  plainly  shews,  they  had 
never  left  the  outer  prison  till  the  ordinance 
had  been  administered.  It  is  true  some 
Baptists  have  hazarded  the  conjecture  that 
there  was  a  large  reservoir  of  water  in  the  pris- 
on ;  but  1  shall  only  say,  if  I  had  adopted 
a  system,  which  drove  me  to  such  miserable 
subterfuges,  I  would  never  open  my  lips  a- 
gain  in  favour  of  explicit  warrant.  I  would 
sit  down  and  sullenly  enjoy  my  opinion  ;  but 
this  conjecture,  with  a  thousand  others  of  the 
same  description,  I  would  carefully  conceal 
in  "the  cave  in  the  mountain,'*  and  inscribe 
«  CLOSE  COMMUNION"  over  the  door. 
Here  then  I  rest  the  subject.  Much  more 
might  be  said,  but  I  presume  you  are  al- 
ready satisfied,  that  the  two  grand  sources 
of  argument  improved  by  the  Baptists  in  fa- 
vour of  immersion,  are  as  barren  as  a  desart. 
No  inference  to  support  the  sentiment  can 
be  derived  from  the  word  "  baptizo  /'  for 
it  has  been  shewn,  by  comparing  scripture 
with  scripture,  which  is  the  only  way  in 
which  this  controversy  can  be  decided,  that 
the  word  does  not  necessarily  signify  im- 
mersion. It  is  a  term  which,  in  the  bible,  is 
exclusively  appropriated  to  religious  ablu- 
tions, some  of  which  were  partial,  and  oth- 
ers total ;  some  were  performed  by  immer- 
sion ;  and  others,  by  pouring  and  sprinkling. 
Hence,  it  is  certain,  that  no  particular  mode 
is  defined  by  that  word.     This  is  left  to 


295 

the  discretion  of  the  church. — And  in  ever/ 
instance  of  Christian  baptism  recorded  in 
the  scriptures,  the  circumstances  of  the  case 
are  in  favour  of  sprinkling.  And  this,  I  ven- 
ture to  pronounce,  a  more  apt  representa- 
tion of  the  things  signified  thereby.  For  in 
the  observance  of  this  holy  institution  we 
come  not  to  the  banks  of  Jordan,  to  hear 
"  the  voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness*, 
prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord  :"  but,  "  to 
Jesus  the  Mediator  qj  the  new  covenant,  and 

TO    THE    BLOOD    OF    SPRINKLING."       And   it  is 

"  through  sancti fie  alien of  the  Spirit,  unto  obe- 
dience and  SPRINKLING  OF  THE  BLOOD  OF    Je- 

sus  Christ,"  and  "with  the  washing  of  water 
by  the  word"  that  the  people  of  God  are  pre- 
pared for  heaven. 

Under  the  former  dispensation,  the  blood 
of  the  sacrifices,  which  was  typical  of  Ihe 
blood  of  Christ,  was  applied  to  the  people 
by  sprinkling :  and  hence,  the  apostles  call 
the  blood  of  Christ  "the  blood  of  sprinkling."9 
Therefore,  if  the  application  of  water  to  the 
body  in  baptism,  is  designed  to  represent 
the  application  of  the  blood  of  Christ  to  the 
soul,  then,  according  to  scripture  analogy, 
sprinkling  is  the  most  significant  and  appro- 
priate mode.  And  the  same  conclusion  will 
follow,  if  we  consider  baptism  as  represent- 
ing the  purifying  efficacy  of  the  blood  of 
Christ.  The  Baptists  are  constantly  asser- 
ting that  "  sprinkling  or  pouring  is  not 
cleansing."  This,  like  a  thousand  other  of 
their  assertions,   is  made  without  evidence 


296 

to  support  it,  and  in  direct  opposition  to 
scripture  testimony,  and  matter  of  fact.  In 
multiplied  instances  the  scriptures  repre- 
sent cleansing  as  the  result  of  sprinkling,  or 
the  application  of  water  with  the  hand. — 
Thus  Moses  was  directed  towash  Aaron  and 
his  sons  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle ;  and  to 
sprinkle  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  and  the 
anointing  oil  upon  them,  when  they  were 
consecrated  to  the  priesthood.  Exo.  xxix. 
And  whenever  they  entered  into  the  taber- 
nacle, they  were  commanded  to  sanctify 
themselves,  by  washing  their  hands  and  their 
feet.  Chap.  xxx.  20,  21.  In  like  manner  the 
people  were  cleansed  by  sprinkling,  or  the 
partial  application  of  the  appointed  ele- 
ment. And  the  apostle,  as  has  been  already 
observed,  declares  that  those  sprinklings 
were  a  token  of  cleansing.  Heb.  ix.  13.  Nu- 
merous other  instances  might  be  adduced 
in  which  the  design  of  sprinkling  is  thus 
represented — Moreover,  the  great  Head 
of  the  church  himself  declares,  that  the 
partial  application  of  water  to  the  body 
is  a  sufficient  representation  of  the  purifi- 
cationoftbe  soul.  " He  ihatis  washedneedeth 
no!  save  to  wash  his  feet,  butis  clean  every  whit" 

JLeb.  But,  it  will  be  said,  that  this  decla^ 
ration  of  our  Saviour  does  not  relate  to  the 
ordinance  of  baptism. 

JEng.  Very  true,  but  this  is  nothing  to  the 
purpose.  Your  people  say,  sprinkling,  or 
the  partial  application  of  water  does  not  de- 
note cleansing  j   but  Christ  says  it  does.— 


297 

This  text,  therefore,  though  it  does  not  al- 
lude to  external  baptism,  decides  so  much  as 
this,  that  sanctijica lion,  of  which  baptism  is 
a  sign,  may  be  represented  by  a  partial  ap- 
plication of  water  to  the  body. 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  it  is  evident, 
that  whether  we  consider  baptismal  water 
as  representing  the  influences  of  the  Spirit, 
by  whose  agency  the  soul  is  sanctified ;  or, 
the  blood  oj  Christ,  by  virtue  of  which  that 
effect  is  produced  ;  or,  the  effect  itself ; 
sprinkling  or  pouring  is  a  more  significant 
mode  than  plunging;  and  vastly  more  con- 
formable to  the  analogy  of  scriplure. 

Leb.  You  have  treated  this  part  of  the 
subject  also,  in  a  manner  perfectly  satisfac- 
tory to  my  mind.  I  am  under  a  thousand 
obligations  to  you  for  your  unwearied  pa- 
tience, during  the  whole  discussion.  I  feel 
myself  in  a  new7  world,  and  possessed  of  im- 
mense privileges,  which  I  never  realized  be- 
fore. As  a  parent,  I  have  always  felt  soli- 
citous for  the  eternal  welfare  of  my  chil- 
dren. But  the  system  I  had  embraced,  pre- 
sented such  a  gloomy  prospect  with  respect 
to  their  salvation,  as  to  cool  the  ardour  of 
parental  feeling,  and  paralize  every  exer- 
tion for  their  spiritual  benefit.  But,  blessed 
be  Gx)d,  I  shall  now  return  to  my  family 
with  new  motives  and  rem  .ved  zeal.  I  shall 
go  to  my  closet  and  to  the  family  altar, 
with  new  views  and  feelings.  I  shall  there 
address  the  Majesty  of  heaven,  not  only  as 
my  God  and  Father,  but  the  covenant  God 
vt  my  children,.  Hereafter  I  shall  endeavour 


298 

lobe  faithful  to  their  souls;  and  shall  la- 
bour, and  pray,  and  hope  for,  and  expect 
their  salvation. 

But  pray  tell  me,  Eugenius,  what  course 
shall  I  take  to  get  rid  of  my  present  connex- 
ion ? 

Eug.  You  must  act  with  great  prudence 
and  circumspection.  By  no  means  break 
effin  a  sudden  manner.  I  suppose  you  have 
entered  into  solemn  covenant  to  walk  with 
that  church;  and,  though  you  are  now  con- 
vinced that  they  are  in  monstrous  errors, 
vet  those  vows  are  not  to  be  trifled  with. 
Go  to  your  church,  tell  thern  plainly  and  af- 
fectionately the  revolution  in  your  senti- 
ments, and  request  a  dismission  from  their 
communion.  If  this  is  denied,  ask  leave  to 
withdraw.  If  this  also  is  refused,  your  way 
is  clear.  No  society,  possessed  of  Christian 
candour  and  charity,  would  refuse  one  or 
the  other,  under  such  circumstances.  But 
if  your  church  does,  I  presume  your  own 
conscience  and  the  Lord  of  your  conscience 
will  exonerate  you. 

But  beware  of  one  thing,  Lebbeus;  and 
that  is,  of  a  compromise.  Your  people,  when 
they  are  apprized  of  your  present  senti- 
ments, and  find  it  impracticable  to  envelope 
you  in  "the  cloud"  again,  will  try  every  ex- 
pedient to  make  you  contented  in  their 
communion.  The  idea  of  losing  one  of 
their  members  in  this  way,  produces  the 
pangs  of  dissolution  in  their  whole  body. 
But  I  have  shewn  you  that  there  can  be  no 


299 

compromise  between  these  two  systems. 
Though  you  may  be  told  that  "you  can  re- 
tain your  present  sentiments  on  free  com- 
munion, but  not  act  them  out;"  that  "you 
may  consider  jour  children  in  covenant 
with  God,  without  having  the  token  of  the 
covenant  applied  to  1  hem ;"  yet  be  not  deceiv- 
ed. This  is  all  carnal  policy.  Remember 
that  precept  which  your  own  denomination 
so  strenuously  enjoin.  "  Teaching  them  to 
observe  all  things,  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you"  Therefore  be  firm  and  im- 
movable, as  well  as  prudent  and  deliberate, 

Leb.  I  thank  you  for  your  advice,  and  I 
shall  scrupulously  regard  it.  But  I  feel  a 
deep  concern  for  my  brethren,  who  are  still 
in  the  blinded  condition  in  which  I  have 
been.  Is  there  no  ground  of  hope  that  they 
will,  ere  long,  have  their  eyes  opened  to  see 
their  errors? 

Eug.  I  have  already  shewn,  you  that  the 
unchristian  practice  of  close  communion  is 
rapidly  declining  both  in  England  and  A~ 
merica.  And  it  is  obvious,  that,  on  other 
grounds,  your  denomination  are  approxi- 
mating to  the  sentiments  and  practice  of 
the  true  church.  You  doubtless  recollect 
that,  but  a  few  years  ago,  they  were  in  the 
constant  habit  of  discarding  human  learning 
as  a  qualification  for  the  ministerial  office ; 
and  railing  against  the  salaries  of  the  regu- 
lar clergy.  From  every  part  of  your 
church,  our  ears  were  stunned  with  the 
din  of  ridicule  against  "college-bre  ddi- 
vines ;"  and  the  cry  of  "  hireling,  hireling," 


300 

was  vociferated  from  every  tongue.  But 
mark  the  change.  Now,  on  these  subjects, 
their  lips  are  closed  in  silence.  A  few  men 
of  education  among  them  (the  Lord  grant 
that  they  may  soon  be  increased)  are  the  or- 
acles of  the  party ;  and  all  their  ministers 
are  claiming  a  stipulated  salary  from  their 
people  ;  though,  at  the  same  time,  the  most 
of  them  follow  some  other  occupation 
through  the  week  for  a  livelihood. 

And  on  the  subject  of  infant  membership 
there  is  a  manifest  approximation  to  the 
gospel  scheme.  In  some  Baptist  churches 
in  England,  it  has  been  a  practice  for  many 
years  past,  for  parents  to  present  their  chil- 
dren, and  as  they  say,  "to  give  them  up  in 
faith  to  God;"  though  not  to  have  "the  seal 
of  their  faith"  set  upon  them.  I  did  not 
knowr,  until  very  lately,  that  this  practice 
had  been  adopted,  in  a  single  instance,  in 
this  country.  But,  I  am  credibly  informed 
of  the  existence  of  two  churches  in  New- 
England,  which  have  come  into  the  measure. 

These  facts  plainly  shew,  that  the  pecu- 
liarities of  the  sect  are  rapidly  decaying. 
Only  let  free  communion  sentiments  and  the 
above-mentioned  practice  become  universal, 
and  the  funeral  rites  of  the  Baptist  scheme 
may  be  performed.  A  single  step  further 
will  bring  them  upon  gospel  ground.  Their 
present  system  will  then  be  IMMERSED, 
like  a  mill-stone  in  the  sea,  to  rise  no  more. 

Leb.  The  Lord  grant  that  it  may  speedi- 
ly be  accomplished. 

Eug.  AMEN. 


CONCLUDING    ADDRESSES. 

1 .  To  the  Padobaptist  Churches. 
Dearly  Beloved  ;  "  Grace  be  unto  you, 
and  peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ" — You  have  adopted  a  con- 
stitution, which,  at  once,  involves  an  exalted 
privilege  and  an  immense  responsibility.  It 
is  the  same  constitution  which  the  Lord  es- 
tablished, when  he  organized  his  church ; 
and  which  he  then  declared  to  be  an  "  ever- 
lasting covenant"  Hence,  he  has  never  ab- 
rogated it :  but  has  given  the  most  satisfac- 
tory testimony  that  it  shall  remain,  in  its  full 
extent,  to  the  end  of  time. — In  this  cove- 
nant, you,  in  your  collective  capacity,  as 
well  as  each  individual  in  his  personal  char- 
acter, are  one  of  the  high  contracting  par- 
ties. Not  a  member  is  admitted  into  your 
holy  fraternity,  without  professing  to  take 
hold  of  this  covenant,  avouching  Jehovah  to 
be  his  God,  and  the  God  of  his  seed.  At 
the  same  time,  you,  as  a  church,  promise  to 
watch  over  him,  and  see  that  he  is  faithful 
to  God,  to  his  fellow-men,  and  especially  to 
those  committed  to  his  immediate  charge. 
Not  a  seal  is  applied  without  your  expres- 
sed or  implied  consent.  Not  a  child  is  born 
within  the  pale  of  the  covenant  and  receives 
the  token  thereof,  but  you  are  held  respon- 
sible for  his  being  trained  up  "  in  the  nur- 
ture and  admonition  of  the  Lord." 
26 


302 

It  is  to  our  reproach  and  injury,  that,  in 
years  past,  so  little  attention  has  been  paid  to 
this  important  duty.  Our  children  have 
been  baptized  according  to  divine  institu- 
tion; but  then,  in  too  many  instances,  they 
have  been  permitted  to  grow  up  without  due 
instruction  and  restraint.  So  great  has  been 
the  inattention  to  this  subject,  that  many 
are  doubting  as  to  the  nature  of  the  relation 
which  children  bear  to  the  church  ;  and  con- 
sequently, as  to  the  duty  which  the  church 
owes  them.  But,  brethren,  so  much  as  this 
is  self-evident :  It  is  the  duty  of  every  indivi- 
dual and  of  every  community  tojulfil  their  own 
solemn  vows.  When  parents  present  their 
children  for  baptism,  they  promise  before 
earth  and  heaven,  to  train  them  up  for  the 
Lord.  You  promise  under  the  same  solem- 
nity, to  see  that  they  fulfil  their  vows.  Now, 
redeem  your  pledge.  If  parents  disregard 
their  covenant  obligations,  call  them  to  an 
account.  If  they  still  persist  in  disobe- 
dience, and  permit  their  children  to  grow 
up  without  instruction  and  restraint,  cut 
them  off  from  your  holy  communion  ;  they 
have  broken  God's  covenant.  Thus  far,  the 
path  of  duty  is  plain.  Go  thus  far ;  and 
then,  if  more  be  necessary,  and  if  the  word 
of  God  will  bear  you  out  in  it,  go  farther. 
But  do  not  waste  time  in  disputing  about 
the  standing  of  baptized  children,  while 
nothing  is  done  to  remedy  existing  evils. 
It  is  needless  to  ascertain  the  full  extent  of 
duty,  while  the  very  first  steps  of  it  are  so 


303 

awfully  neglected. — Something  must  he 
done  without  delay.  "  The  uncircumcised 
triumph,"  and  pour  contempt  on  your  con- 
stitution ;  because,  under  a  lax  administra- 
tion, comparatively  little  good  results  from 
its  adoption.  The  welfare  of  society — the 
honour  of  the  church — the  salvation  of 
souls,  especially  of  the  rising  generation,  and 
the  glory  of  God  require  you  to  awake. 

You  are  daily  praying  and  labouring  for 
the  introduction  of  the  latter  day  glory. 
Remember,  one  of  the  preludes  of  that  bles- 
sed period  is  "  the  turning  of  the  hearts  of 
the  fathers  to  the  children,  and  the  hearts  of 
the  children  to  the  fathers'''  Until  this  event 
is  realized,  you  will  look  in  vain  for  the 
revelation  of  that  glorious  day.  The  disci- 
pline of  the  church  must  be  revived,  not 
only  in  relation  to  the  personal  conduct  of 
adult  members,  but  also  with  respect  to  their 
children.  When  this  is  done,  then  shall 
Zion  "  arise  and  shine,  her  light  being  come 
and  the  glory  of  the  Lord  being  risen  upon 
her"  Then  may  you  say  to  your  opposers, 
"  Walk  about  Zion,  and  go  round  about  her  ; 
tell  the  toners  thereof;  mark  ye  well  her  bul- 
warks, consider  her  palaces  j  that  ye  may  tell 
it  to  the  generation  following.  For  this  God 
is  our  God  Jor  ever  and  ever  ;  he  will  be  our 
guide  even  unto  death.'''  Then  shall  "  the 
testimony  be  established  again  in  Jacob,  and 
the  law  appointed  in  Israel,  which  he  command- 
cd  our  fathers,  that  they  should  make  them 
known  to  their  children :  that  the  generation 


304 

to  come  might  know  them,  even  the  children 
which  should  be  born  ;  who  should  arise  and 
declare  them  to  their  children.  That  they 
might  set  their  hope  in  God,  and  not  forget  the 
works  of  God,  but  keep  his  commandments" 
from  generation  to  generation. 

2.  To  Professing  Parents. 

Christian  Brethren;  It  is  an  unspeak- 
able favour  that  the  Lord  has  admitted 
you  into  his  covenant.  You  are  under  in- 
finite obligations,  of  a  personal  nature,  to 
divine  grace.  But  the  kindness  of  heaven 
has  been  still  further  manifested.  Out  of 
regard  to  you,  the  Lord  has  made  gracious 
promises  concerning  your  children.  He  has 
permitted  them  to  be  sealed  with  the  seal  of 
the  covenant ;  and  has  given  you  peculiar 
encouragement  to  expect  their  salvation, 
through  the  instrumentality  of  your  pious 
labours.  How  distinguished  the  favour! 
how  vast  your  obligations  ! 

But,  brethren,  in  order  for  your  children 
to  realize  the  benefits  of  this  constitution, 
you  must  be  faithful  to  their  souls.  The 
sacramental  water  possesses  no  intrinsic  vir- 
tue that  can  communicate  benefits  to  the 
soul.  "Sprinkling  a  little  water  in  the  face" 
and  even  plunging  the  body  in  the  ocean, 
Avill,  of  themselves,  be  alike  ineffectual.  Bap- 
tism is  a  seal  of  special  privileges;  and  with- 
out the  enjoyment  of  these,  the  sacred  rite 
would  be  equally  useless  to  adults  and  in- 
fants. If  you  expect  your  children  to  expe- 
rience saving  benefits,  you  must  faithfully 


305 

discharge  those  important  duties  which  God 
requires,  and  which  you  have  voluntarily 
promised.  When  you  first  entered  into  cov- 
enant, and  at  every  subsequent  renewal  of 
it,  you  vowed  before  God,  angels  and  men, 
"to  instruct  your  children  and  servants  in- 
to the  doctrines  and  duties  of  the  reli- 
gion you  profess — to  bring  them  up  under 
the  exercise  of  proper  discipline — to  set  be- 
fore them  a  pious  example  :  and  to  maintain 
the  daily  worship  of  God  in  your  families/' 
These  duties  must  be  made  an  every-day 
business.  It  is  not  by  a  long  lecture,  de- 
livered once  a  week,  that  your  children 
are  to  be  instructed  into  the  things  of  reli- 
gion. Their  minds  are  volatile  and  they 
can  retain  but  little  at  a  time.  Your  in- 
structions must  "  distil  like  the  rain."  They 
must  be  given  "line  upon  line,  line  upon 
line  ;  precept  upon  precept,  precept  upon 
precept  ;  here  a  little,  and  there  a  little." 
"  And  these  words  which  I  command  thee 
this  day,  shall  be  in  thine  heart  ;  and  thou 
shalt  teach  them  diligently  unto  thy  chil- 
dren, and  shalt  talk  of  them  when  thou  sit- 
test  in  thine  house,  and  when  thou  walkest 
by  the  way,  and  when  thou  liest  down,  and 
when  thou  risest  up.  And  thou  shalt  bind 
them  for  a  sign  upon  thine  hand,  and  they 
shall  be  as  frontlets  between  thine  eyes.  And 
thou  shalt  write  them  upon  the  posts  of  thy 
house  and  on  thy  gales."  This  is  the  whole 
secret  as  to  the  manner  of  parental  instruc- 
tion.— And  as  to  the  matter,  it  is  all  that  God. 
26* 


306 

has  revealed  in  bis  word.  Every  doctrine 
and  duty  therein  contained  "  belongs  to  you 
and  to  your  children."  Let  the  great  object 
of  all  your  instructions  be,  to  convince  them 
that  they  are  sinners,  and  that  they  must  be 
renewed  in  the  spirit  of  their  minds,  or  they 
can  never  "see  the  kingdom  of  God.'' 

Assume  the  government  of  your  children  at 
an  early  period.  With  the  first  daivnings, 
of  reason,  let  them  learn  that  the  will  of  the 
parent  is  the  law  of  the  household.  By  at- 
tention to  this  particular,  you  will  save 
yourselves  incalculable  trouble,  and  your 
children  much  needless  correction.  For 
the  want  of  this,  consequences  fatal  to  the 
character  and  state  of  children,  I  doubt  not, 
have  often  ensued.  Let  children  live  un- 
controlled till  they  are  a  year  and  a  half  or 
two  yearsof  age, and  if  they  are  everbrought 
into  subjection,  it  will  require  ten  times  as 
much  correction  as  would  have  been  neces- 
sary at  an  earlier  period  ;  and  even  then,  the 
work  will  not  be  as  effectually  accomplished. 
However  unpopular  the  sentiment  may  be, 
and  however  contrary  to  the  opinion  of  those 
indulgent  parents,  who  will  not  allow  their 
children  to  possess  as  much  sagacity  at  the 
age  of  nine  months,  as  a  brute  animal  of  as 
many  weeks,  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact, 
that  the  early  commencement  and  steady 
maintenance  of  discipline  requires  the  least 
degree  of  severe  correction,  and  is  the  best 
evidence  of  true  parental  affection.  Adopt 
the  plan  proposed  in  Dr.  WiTHERsrooN's 


307 

Letters  on  Education,  which  I  earnestly  re- 
commend to  your  perusal,  and  you  may  ea- 
sily obtain  the  control  of  your  children,  at 
an  age  that  you  may  now  deem  incredible. 

Let  your  own  deportment  be  such  that 
your  children  may  be  convinced,  you  are 
sincere  in  your  profession.  They  are  better 
judges  of  consistency  of  character,  than  yoil 
are  probably  aware.  In  vain  do  you  instruct 
and  correct  them,  unless  you  exhibit  a  pious 
example.  Without  this,  your  children-may  be 
made  to  fear  you,  but  they  will  not  fear  to  sin. 

Finally;  pray  much  with  and  for  your 
children.  This  is  an  important  duty  and  a 
precious  privilege.  It  is  one  of  the  establish- 
ed means  of  procuring  promised  blessings, 
"  I  mill  yet  for  this  be  inquired  of  by  the  house 
of  Israel  to  do  it  for  tktffi?*  It  may  be  improv- 
ed even  while  they  are  incapable  of  in- 
struction or  restraint,  orof  being  influenced 
by  example.  From  the  first  moment  of  their 
existence,  the  pious  parent  may  approach 
the  throne  of  grace,  and  implore  for  them 
the  covenant  blessings  of  Abraham.  When 
reason  begins  to  dawn,  not  only  call  them 
around  the  family  altar,  but  take  them  fre- 
quently with  you  into  your  closets.  This 
will  have  a  powerful  effect  to  solemnize  their 
minds,  and  to  promote  the  fear  of  God  in 
their  hearts.  In  a  word;  let  all  your  instruc- 
tions and  every  act  of  discipline,  as  far  as 
circumstances  will  permit,  be  sanctified  by 
prayer. 

For  the  performance  of  these  duties,  breth- 


308 

ren,  you  are  held  responsible.  If  you  neg- 
lect to  discharge  them,  you  are  liable  to  the 
discipline  of  the  church. — Consider,  more- 
over their  vast  importance.  The  respecta- 
bility and  usefulness  of  your  children  in  this 
world,  and,  under  the  Divine  blessing,  their 
eternal  salvation  depend  upon  your  fidelity. 
Without  it,  they  may  become  your  living 
sorrows,  and  die  accursed.  And  should  they 
perish  through  your  neglect,  how  could  you 
meet  them  at  the  bar  of  God!  If  a  pang  of 
wo,  could  ever  enter  a  celestial  mind,  me- 
thinks,  il  would  be  inflicted  by  seeing  your 
children  turned  into  hell,  in  consequence  of 
your  unfaithfulness. — On  the  other  hand, 
how  happy  the  condition,  and  how  delight- 
ful the  prospects  of  faithful  parents  and  o- 
bedient  children.  They  grow  up  in  this  life 
as  "  fellow-heirs  of  grace  ;"  and  shall  at  last 
meet  in  Mount  Zion  before  God,  to  sit  clown 
"  with  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob,"  and  sing 
"  the  song  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb"  forever 
and  ever.- — Brethren,  I  intreat  you  by  all 
the  comfort  and  happiness  that  you  hope 
to  derive  from  your  children  in  this  life, — by 
all  the  mortification  and  pain  and  grief  you 
wish  to  avoid — by  all  the  joys  of  heaven,  and 
by  all  the  miseries  of  hell,  to  be  faithful  to 
their  souls. 

3.  To  Baptized  Children. 
Ye  children  of  the  covenant  ;  how  high- 
ly are  you  distinguished  !  The  seal  of  A- 
braham's  God  has  been  impressed  on  your 
foreheads.  The  Lord  has  marked  you  as 
his  property,   in  a  peculiar  sense  ;  and  has 


309 

provided  special  means  for  you  to  be  train- 
ed up  in  his  service.  This  distinction  how- 
ever is  conferred  upon  you,  not  on  your  ac- 
count; but  solely,  on  account  of  your  pious 
parents: — not  because  you  are  any  better 
than  others,  for  by  nature  you  are  children 
of  wrath  even  as  they;  but  "because  the  Lord 
loved  your  fathers,  therefore  hath  he  chosen 
you"  to  enjoy  these  exalted  privileges. 

But  remember,  the  bare  enjoyment  of 
privilege  cannot  save  you.  It  is  not  enough 
to  be  "  set  apart"  to  the  Lord's  service  ;  you 
must  possess  inherent  holiness.  Your  pecu- 
liar advantages  are  designed  as  superior 
means  to  produce  this  effect.  You  are  fa- 
voured with  numerous  instructions ;  you  are 
the  children  of  numberless  prayers.  You 
now  enjoy  the  most  favourable  opportunity 
to  make  your  peace  with  God.  But  shortly 
these  privileges  will  be  at  an  end.  You  will 
soon  leave  the  family  altar,  and  go  out  into 
the  wide  world  to  provide  for  yourselves. 
How  wretched  will  be  your  condition,  if 
then,  you  have  no  altar  of  your  own  to  ap- 
proach— no  interest  at  the  throne  of  grace 
to  improve  for  your  own  souls!  Secluded 
from  the  privileges  of  the  parental  dwelling, 
outcasts  from  the  church,  you  will  be  "with- 
out God,  without  Christ,  and  without  hope 
in  the  world."  How  imperious  is  your  pre- 
sent duty  !  You  have  no  time  to  lose.  You 
mustawaketoa  senseof  yourcondition.  You 
must  be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  minds, 
or  perish  for  ever.  Your  characters  are  ra- 
pidly forming  for  the  eternal  world,    They 


310 

will  soon  be  sealed  to  the  day  of  God  Al- 
mighty. Your  parents  are  deeply  concern- 
ed for  you.  The  church  watches  over  you 
Avith  the  tenderest  solicitude.  If  you  con- 
tinue impenitent  and  die  in  your  sins,  ten 
thousand  slighted  privileges  will  fall  upon 
you,  and  sink  you  to  the  lowest  hell.  Awake, 
then,  ye  careless  children,  who  are  "at  ease 
in  Zion."  Make  a  voluntary  surrender  of 
yourselves  to  God,  that  you  may  inherit  the 
blessings  of  the  covenant,  and  be  prepared 
to  transmit  them  to  generations  yet  unborn. 
4.  To  Unbelieving  Parents. 
My  Friends;  you  will  indulge  me  in  a 
few  words  of  address  to  you  ;  and  you  will 
pardon  me,  if  1  address  you  as  "  aliens  from 
the  commonwealth  cf  Israel  and  strangers  to 
the  covenant  of  promise.  The  Lord  has  dis- 
tinguished you  from  the  heathen.  Pie  has 
cast  your  lot  in  a  Christian  land.  You  have 
been  educated  under  the  light  of  the  gospel. 
Some  of  you  were  born  within  the  pale  of 
the  church  ;  but  by  misimproving  your  ex- 
alted privileges,  you  have  cut  yourselves 
off  from  the  blessings  of  the  covenant. 
Your  condition  is  perilous.  Your  souls  are 
in  jeopardy  every  moment.  You  are  con- 
stantly exposed  to  all  the  horrors  of  eternal 
burnings.— But,  you  are  not  likely  to  perish 
alone.  You  have  been  instrumental  in  giv- 
ing existence  to  other  immortal  beings, 
whose  character  and  condition  are  deeply 
involved  in  your  conduct.  Your  children 
are  a  part  of  yourselves,  and  doubtless  you 
love  them  as  your  own  souls.    But  by  con*- 


3J1 

tinned  impenitence,  yon  may  exclude  them, 
as  well  as  yourselves,  from  the  blessings  of 
salvation.  It  is  true,  if  they  perish,  they  will 
be  condemned  for  their  own  per  sonahins;  but 
"their  blood  will  be  found  in  your  skirts." 
You  are  anxious  for  their  present  com- 
fort and  happiness ;  but,  I  beseech  you  to 
recollect,  that  they  are  immortal  beings. 
—  You  are  daily  labouring  to  provide 
for  them  the  riches  of  time  ;  but,  "  what  will 
will  it  profit  you"  or  them,  "to  gain  the  whole 
world  and  lose  your  own  souls?"  A  few  more 
years  will  roll  away,  and  you  must  meet 
them  at  the  bar  of  God.  How  dreadful  if 
you  should  meet  them  on  the  left  hand  of 
the  Judge  !  How  will  your  ears  be  stunned 
with  their  bitter  accusations!  Can  you  bear 
the  thought  of  hearing  them  exclaim,  "  O  un- 
faithful parents !  but  for  your  neglect,  we 
might  now  be  in  the  midst  of  yonder  hap- 
py throng.  You  taught  us  how  to  obtain 
wealth  in  the  other  world,  but  you  never 
taught  us  how  to  save  our  souls.  Our  riches 
we  have  left  forever,  and  now  we  must  lie 
down  in  eternal  sorrow."  My  friends,  if  you 
would  save  yourselves  the  pain  of  such  an 
interview,  be  intreated  to  make  religion  the 
great  concern  of  your  lives.  "  Seek  ye  first 
the  kingdom  of  God  and  his  righteousness, 
and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto  you.'' 
"Believe  in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  and  you 
shall  be  saved,  and  your  houses."  Embrace 
the  covenant  of  Abraham  in  faith,  and  you 
will  bring  salvation  to  yourselves  and  to 
your  households. 


312 

5.   To  the  Children  of  Unbelievers. 

.My  dear  young  friends;  It  is  indeed 
your  unhappiness  that  you  were  not  horn 
within  the  pale  of  the  covenant.  But  though 
this  deprives  you  of  many  precious  privi- 
leges, it  does  not  excuse  your  impenitence  in 
sin.  The  Lord  declares  in  his  word,  that 
the  heathen  are  "without  excuse."  How 
much  more  inexcusable  are  you! — Though 
your  parents  have  been  awfully  negligent  of 
your  souls,  yet  you  are  blessed  with  the  gos- 
pel. You  have  the  bible  to  read,  and  the 
day  and  means  of  grace  to  enjoy.  You  are 
not  ignorant  of  your  duty.  If  you  will  obey 
the  calls  of  divine  grace,  the  Lord  will  not 
despise  you.  "  He  is  no  respecter  of  persons; 
but  in  every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and 
worketh  righteousness, isaccepted  withhim." 

Be  intreated  to  repent  without  delay. — 
Time  is  ever  on  the  wing.  You  may  soon 
die. — Or,  if  your  lives  should  be  spared  a 
few  years  longer,  you  will  probably  become 
the  parents  of  children;  for  whom,  in  your 
turn,  God  will  hold  you  responsible.  You 
will  then  have  more  souls  to  take  care  of, 
and  less,  much  less  time  to  devote  to  it.  The 
cares  of  life  will  then  engross  so  much  atten- 
tion, that  you  will  scarcely  find  time  to  think 
of  your  eternal  concerns.  "  Behold,  now 
is  the  accepted  time:  behold  now  is  the  day  of 
salvation.  To  day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice, 
harden  not  your  hearts"  Therefore,  "  Turn 
ye,  tcrn  ye  :  for  why  will  ye  die  ?'[ 

THE  END. 


<y 


*-^H. 


■ 


■ 


